You just seem to be shooting your self in the foot and going around in a meaningless circle. . . .You aforementioned that morality does not evolve, which is a very FALSE statement. . . . .Right and wrong differs from culture to culture and from society to society. . . .Right and wrong also evolves. . . .What might be right today might be wrong tomorrow and what might be wrong today might be right tomorrow. . . .Morality is NOT intrinsic it has to be learned through experimentation and by experience. . . .Let me give u and example, long ago some tribes in Nigeria used to kill their twin babies and they saw nothing wrong with that, they never saw anything wrong with that action, they had to be thought to stop it. . . . If morality were intrinsic  as you erroneously claim then why do parents spend a lot of time, effort and resources teaching their children the difference between right and wrong? I would expect all children to know  the difference between right and wrong automatically if morality were intrinsic

I'm sorry, we are clearly talking about different things.
In your twin babies illustration, the current practice (code of justice) was to kill twin babies but the mother of the twin babies knew that she didn't want her babies to die that would be the sense of morality I'm talking about.

Our sense of morality dictates that killing a human being is bad unless possibly in self defense (situation of war).
Even during a war rookie soliders still feel a sense of guilt after their first kill and they keep thinking "should I have killed that person?", "did the person I killed pose an immediate threat to me?", "could I have done without killing the person I just killed?"

I'm sorry, Maybe I'm the one that introduced the different meaning.

Children have a sense of morality similar to the way a primary one student knows the basics of science 1+1 = 2. That is not enough for survival and were the child to be left to himself the myraid of influences to make wrong choices (regardless of whether the child knows they are wrong or not) would most certainly overwhelm the child.

BaboonYansh:

The issue of love only comes in  in atonement and forgiveness NOT bending the perfect laws so it can be convenient for you to obey. Its inconsistent. It should be you disobey the perfect laws and the law giver is merciful and loving enough to forgive. The perfect law should still stay.

But in a situation where the laws are Imperfect and wrong, it isn't consistent with a Perfect God,

That God allows something does not mean it is His Law

Jesus said that even though God allowed divorce for the jews, it was not His perfect will (note that proceedings for divorce were in the code as the proceedings for war were)
If divorce was not God's perfect will then maybe war is not God's perfect will.

I believe God was constrained in His dealings with humans because humans were incapable of adhering to His laws.
God did not bend His perfect Laws to accommodate humans, He simply created a way for them to atone for breaking the laws. One would notice that irrespective of whether anyone transgressed (broke a law) or not the High priest was supposed to offer up a special sacrifice once a year for everyone. Since this special sacrifice did not absolve a transgressor from atoning for is transgressions separately, I would imagine that this sacrifice is the atonement for using a justice code that was not God's perfect law.

@mazaje
You have said that Christianity is not the right way.

Please for the benefit of everyone please post what you think is the explanation of how the universe came into being, how life was first formed and finally how human beings came into existence.

Of course for your theory to be considered correct it must explain every phenomena we observe today.

I accept a certain level of credulity in accepting that God exists because I have not been able to explain many observable phenomena outside of the existence of God.

For you to prove that I am really credulous you must explain all the phenomena that I will post.

Logic1, that Christianity "is the only way" does absolutely nothing to explain how the universe came into being, how life was formed and how human beings came to being. Christianity is based on a creation myth just like all the other religions and there are many of those creation myths flying around. Take your pick. I just want to point that out.

logic1:

@mazaje
You have said that Christianity is not the right way.

Please for the benefit of everyone please post what you think is the explanation of how the universe came into being, how life was first formed and finally how human beings came into existence.

Jenwitemi:

Logic1, that Christianity "is the only way" does absolutely nothing to explain how the universe came into being, how life was formed and how human beings came to being. Christianity is based on a creation myth just like all the other religions and there are many of those creation myths flying around. Take your pick. I just want to point that out.

Do you know for certain how the universe came into being, how life was formed and how human beings came to be?

If you do not know all the above then you do not have enough information to be able to conclude that creation as described by the bible is a myth except if creation as described by the bible contains irreconcilable contradictions such that it is rendered untrue by the law of non-contradiction.

logic1:

I'm sorry, we are clearly talking about different things.
In your twin babies illustration, the current practice (code of justice) was to kill twin babies but the mother of the twin babies knew that she didn't want her babies to die that would be the sense of morality I'm talking about.

We are not talking about different things at all, you seem to want to make it look as if we are but we aren't. . .Again you are not stating the truth when you declare that the mother of the twins didn't want her babies to die. . .We know very well about mothers that VERY gladly hand over their witch children to be killed because the society frowns at witch craft. . . . .The mothers back then gladly gave their twins to be killed because according to the moral values at that time the children were evil and of no good to the family and the society as a whole, mothers gladly gave off their twins to be killed so that evil will not befall them. . . . .

Our sense of morality dictates that killing a human being is bad unless possibly in self defense (situation of war).

This is a LIE. . . .A documentary I watched some years ago on national geographic showed how a local Aboriginal tribe used to kill their neighbors and eat their flesh because they believed it will make them better hunters. . . .Lets take the endearment to sharia law for example, a lot of muslims believe that a person deserves to be stoned to death for adultery, they see nothing wrong with that and believe its morally acceptable and also the best form of justice. . . .

Even during a war rookie soliders still feel a sense of guilt after their first kill and they keep thinking "should I have killed that person?", "did the person I killed pose an immediate threat to me?", "could I have done without killing the person I just killed?"

A lot of people feel no remorse for killing others. . . . .

Children have a sense of morality similar to the way a primary one student knows the basics of science 1+1 = 2. That is not enough for survival and were the child to be left to himself the myraid of influences to make wrong choices (regardless of whether the child knows they are wrong or not) would most certainly overwhelm the child.

Children have little or no sense of morality at all. . .If a child is brought up in a society that accepts and believes that eating its neighbors will make them better hunters then that child will grow to accept that culture and will not find anything wrong in that. . . . .If a child grows in a society that accepts killing of infidels as a divine injunction that child will have no regrets when he kills infidels. . . . .Children have NO sense of morality that is why parents and the society spend a lot of time and resources teaching them the difference between right and wrong and acceptable societal values. . . . .

The beauty of my own personal position is, i do not need to know - "for certain" -  how it came about. It is not that relevant to my own evolution in this reality that i am in. So, what is the relevance of that question you posed? A religion claiming to know how the universe came about has never won anybody with an iota of discernment in their souls over. It gives no religion any validity whatsoever because the christian view about how the universe and everything in it came about is nothing more than just another version amongst a multitude of versions of the creation myths all over the planet. My God did it! Or our God(s) did it! That's what you all are saying, basically.

logic1:

Do you know for certain how the universe came into being, how life was formed and how human beings came to be?

If you do not know all the above then you do not have enough information to be able to conclude that creation as described by the bible is a myth except if creation as described by the bible contains irreconcilable contradictions such that it is rendered untrue by the law of non-contradiction.

Jenwitemi:

The beauty of my own personal position is, i do not need to know - "for certain" - how it came about. It is not that relevant to my own evolution in this reality that i am in.

If what you believe in cannot explain how you came to be don't you think the probability of it being true is extremely remote?

If you do not have 100% knowledge of the history of the universe, life and mankind then you are in no position to say any theory of creation is a myth except (as I mentioned before) the theory has internal inconsistencies.

100% knowledge? I don't think anybody does have it, and definitely not religions like christianity and . . .  you. So we are all in the same boat in this regard, see. So, why don't we all just shut up about the origin of the universe and it's maker being our daddy or something, eh?

logic1:

If what you believe in cannot explain how you came to be don't you think the probability of it being true is extremely remote?

If you do not have 100% knowledge of the history of the universe, life and mankind then you are in no position to say any theory of creation is a myth except (as I mentioned before) the theory has internal inconsistencies.

And talking about "divine commands", terrorists organizations with their suicide commandos definitely have those commands in abundance. They are always divinely mandated by their deity, allah, to blow everybody up who is not doing the will of allah. A very soothing thought with such people living amongst us.

Jenwitemi:

100% knowledge? I don't think anybody does have it, and definitely not religions like christianity and . . . you. So we are all in the same boat in this regard, see. So, why don't we all just shut up about the origin of the universe and it's maker being our daddy or something, eh?

Yes nobody has 100% knowledge but the reason why we can't just "shut up" is that the origin of the universe, life and humans is at the foundation of any kind of worldview.

If one does not have a worldview then one will not be able to interpret most of the phenomena common to human life or at best one will have conflicting and unsatisfying explanations.