m_nwankwo:

@DeepSight. I think my two previous posts on necrophilia have addressed why necrophilia is immoral. New issues and exceptions that you bring about can be dealt with but I do not think it is of any use. I do not have anything further to add. As always, stay blessed.

Many thanks for your inputs. My issue is simply that I am looking for the "holy grail" of morality - the simplest principle on which the precept of morality stands or falls. As yet, I have not seen that principle in any of the reasons proferred on this thread, or maybe I have missed it.

Deep Sight:

Many thanks for your inputs. My issue is simply that I am looking for the "holy grail" of morality - the simplest principle on which the precept of morality stands or falls. As yet, I have not seen that principle in any of the reasons proferred on this thread, or maybe I have missed it.

Hi Deepsight. Look within yourself and listen to the voice of your spirit. Then you will uncover what already resides in you. Stay blessed.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Deepsight. Look within yourself and listen to the voice of your spirit. Then you will uncover what already resides in you. Stay blessed.

My personal feeling is that -

God is life and light. The sum of all eternal harmony.

Thus anything that tends towards life, light and harmony - helping both the individual and common good - is positive and moral.

And thus anything that tends against life, light and harmony - tending towards death, darkness and chaos - destroying both the individual and common good - is negative and immoral.

This might seem to be in line with conventional precepts but in reality it is not necessarily so. Many a thing conventionally considered immoral might actually be moral or neutral under this test: and vice versa.

And under this criteria. . . . . it seems to me that in certain circumstances, something such as a necrophilic act may be morally neutral - that is to say, neither moral or immoral.

It is important that I also state that this does not mean that such an act is not distasteful: it is indeed eminently disgusting and distasteful - and I need further state that in my view not everything distasteful is by that very fact either moral or immoral. A married couple may for example have certain heterose.xual se.xual practices which may be thoroughly distasteful to the generality of people: but that by itself does not render their kinks moral or immoral.

I wonder Muslims will have to say about this when this Hadith records what Prophet Mohammed did as follows

This is from a book called "Kanz Al Umal" (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of "The issues of women", authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in "Al-Jami Al-Saghir," written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

‘I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib’… The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali. (Sentence number 34424 http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=137&CID=426#s2

Demetrius Explains : "The Arabic word used here for slept is "Id'tajat," and literally means "lay down" with her. Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a "mother of the believers." This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believe that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. "Reduce the pressure" here means that the torment won't be as much because she is now a "mother of the believers" after Muhammad slept with her and "consummated" the union. "



Now this is a difficult stuff to believe even for a non Muslim. BUT I just relaying what is. How about this:

In Morocco, the head of the Moroccan Association for Jurisprudence Research stirred both outrage and controversy when he issued a fatwa allowing Muslim men to have sex with their just-deceased wives under the pretext that nothing in Islam prohibits sex with corpses. This fatwa followed a series of sex-related ones issued by the same cleric.
http://mikesright./2012/01/02/al-arabiya-news-picks-the-most-stupid-fatwas-of-2011/

@ brentkruge: Aside from the said fatwa, is there anything else that precludes the act of necrophilia ? I haven't overlooked the Koranic passage you posted though.

Another question to consider is what's the aim of morality? If morality has no utility, its of no importance and useless. So if one wants humans to act like tiny termites, then necrophilia would be immoral. However if the practice doesn't threaten society's survival ( which I feel its the end of morality) then its not immoral.

Kay 17:

Another question to consider is what's the aim of morality? If morality has no utility, its of no importance and useless.

I'd reply by saying morality is what makes us human. If morality is useless, then one could possibly kill for pleasure without fear of repercussion.

Kay 17:
So if one wants humans to act like tiny termites, then necrophilia would be immoral.

Could you explain what you said here ?

Kay 17:
However if the practice doesn't threaten society's survival ( which I feel its the end of morality) then its not immoral.

Have you considered that growing necrophilic practices could threaten the propagation of the human species givien the fact that dead bodies cannot procreate. I also have a question for you: Do you consider necrophilia immoral ? Give reasons with your answer. The reason I ask this question is because it is said by atheists that reason is the basis of morality. I want to see how far we can go with reason in adjudging the morality (i.e rightness or wrongness) of necrophilia

Define moralilty.
Your question is byassed as you have assumed necrophilia immoral and are asking us why it is thus.
What is moral or immoral as someone has already hinted depends on the society and the era you find yourself in.
If you take morality by it's definition of distinction between right and wrong, then I would argue that, because of the strange and repulsive nature of the act, necrophilia is wrong and consequently immoral. Can it be right and moral at certain times? YES.
I certainly do not think it wrong when there was a pre-death agreement especially if the two has been intimate before the demise of one.

If we accept necrophilia as a phsycological problem, the deviation will come one day in courts when lawyers will argue that necrophilia is a mitigating circumstance for murder.

It is dissappointing that this is being compared to homosexuality in such manner as to degrade and insult homosexuals or their proponents.

For those that condemn it on religious grounds, know that your almighty perfect infallible god made them thus.

@UyiIredia

Morality is basically rules, do rules make an individual a person? As to killiing, its just regulated not absolutely prohibited. Society permits it in cases where itself is not threatened or for its protection.

The termite tale is to demonstrate that morality loses its essence if it pursues a goal of conformity. Trying to pound humans into a mould of conformity is immoral. Humans are different and unique. As long such differences don't get in the way of society's wellbeing.

In our present environment, population reduction is not an issue. Science has taken us so far, that we are concerned about our rapid increase. So if a few are necrophiles, we have no problem.

Logic Mind:

Define moralilty.
Your question is byassed as you have assumed necrophilia immoral and are asking us why it is thus.
What is moral or immoral as someone has already hinted depends on the society and the era you find yourself in.
If you take morality by it's definition of distinction between right and wrong, then I would argue that, because of the strange and repulsive nature of the act, necrophilia is wrong and consequently immoral. Can it be right and moral at certain times? YES.

  There's this tribe (sorry can't recall the name now) somewhere in the Amazon jungle where it is custom for a surviving relative to eat the corpse of a deceased- in order to consume their 'essence'. To me this is worse than necrophilia, yet it is/was a common thing in their society. I will argue though, that there is a certain universality to what we humans consider moral/immoral. By that I mean that while I hold that societies draw out their own 'moral' lines, those who would consider such behavior okay would be in the very small minority of the human race - both past & present. As such I think an argument can be made that in the big picture, even though they considered it okay, when placed against the context of the rest of humanity, it would be truly 'immoral'. The issue of morality has several layers . . . personal, societal and universal.

It is dissappointing that this is being compared to homosexuality in such manner as to degrade and insult homosexuals or their proponents.

For those that condemn it on religious grounds, know that your almighty perfect infallible god made them thus.

I think it would be making a mistake to consider morals a 'religious' attribute. It is rather a human one. And as far as I've seen no one has 'degraded or insulted homosexuals and their proponents'. It is not homosexuality itself that is being compared to necrophilia - but rather the argument used in favor of homosexuality is strikingly similar to that used in support of of necrophilia. So why is one accepted & the other not?

Logic Mind:

Define moralilty.
Your question is byassed as you have assumed necrophilia immoral and are asking us why it is thus.
What is moral or immoral as someone has already hinted depends on the society and the era you find yourself in.

Is this some kinda joke.

I certainly do not think it wrong when there was a pre-death agreement especially if the two has been intimate before the demise of one.

If we accept necrophilia as a phsycological problem, the deviation will come one day in courts when lawyers will argue that necrophilia is a mitigating circumstance for murder.

It is a Psychiatric  [/b]problem

It is dissappointing that this is being compared to homosexuality in such manner as to degrade and insult homosexuals or their proponents.

For those that condemn it on religious grounds, know that your almighty perfect infallible [b]god made them thus.

In the beginning, so starts the bible God made them male and female , not male and male

frosbel:


In the beginning, so starts the bible God made them male and female , not male and male

So who made the homosexuals and necrophiles then?

Kay 17:

@UyiIredia

Morality is basically rules, do rules make an individual a person? As to killiing, its just regulated not absolutely prohibited. Society permits it in cases where itself is not threatened or for its protection.

The termite tale is to demonstrate that morality loses its essence if it pursues a goal of conformity. Trying to pound humans into a mould of conformity is immoral. Humans are different and unique. As long such differences don't get in the way of society's wellbeing.

In our present environment, population reduction is not an issue. Science has taken us so far, that we are concerned about our rapid increase. So if a few are necrophiles, we have no problem.

The evolutionists' concept of morality.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20100326.gif[/img]

Ordinarily, God is not necessarily needed to create moral rules,

It can be affirmed that throughout history there are more immoral acts from religious people than from atheists.

Kay 17:

Ordinarily, God is not necessarily needed to create moral rules,

The first 4 of the Moral Law deals with our relationship with God while the last 6 deals with our neighbours.  Knowing that you don't have respect for God do you have respect for man?  If I steal your wallet would I still be morally right in your sight?

Logic Mind:

It can be affirmed that throughout history there are more immoral acts from religious people than from atheists.

Don't forget to include the immoral acts done by atheists in the name of Neo darwinism. Atheists have a religion and it is called evolutionism.

OLAADEGBU:

The first 4 of the Moral Law deals with our relationship with God while the last 6 deals with our neighbours.  Knowing that you don't have respect for God do you have respect for man?  If I steal your wallet would I still be morally right in your sight?

I don't need religion to know that it is wrong to steal. Think.
Moral Law? WTF?

OLAADEGBU:

Don't forget to include the immoral acts done by atheists in the name of Neo darwinism. Atheists have a religion and it is called evolutionism.

Not necessarily. I for one neither believe in god or evolution because there are holes in all those theories. I am honest with myself and say "i don't know". I don't know how come I'm here but all explanations so far have been proved inadequate.

Evolution is more believable than the silent powerless useless god creator.

Logic Mind:

I don't need religion to know that it is wrong to steal. Think.

Can you now see that morality cannot be relative but that it has absolutes? No one needs religion what we need is the truth.  It is the truth that you know and act on that will make you free indeed.  We all have this in-built moral compass called conscience but many of us no longer listen to it as we have constantly muffled it's ringing bells with faulty human ideologies.  This is the reason we have to go back to awaken our consciences by seeing what is in the users' manual.  There you will see the hard copy of the Moral Law and this can only be read with our consciences.

Logic Mind:

Moral Law? WTF?

Here is the Moral Law that I referred to.  You can also translate into the modern yankee language, it is universal:

[list]
1.  I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any other gods before me .
          I'm God.  Don't play me.
[/list]
[list]

2.  Thou shalt not have any graven images
           Don't be makin no hood ornaments and charms out of me, or like me.
[/list]
[list]
3.  Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord thy God in vain
         Don't be callin' me for no reason.
[/list]
[list]
4.  Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy
          Y'all betta be in church on Sunday, and not just the Sundays when it's Mother's day, Easter and Christmas
[/list]
[list]
5.  Honour thy father and thy mother
          Don't Diss or cuss out yo momma,  and if you know who ya daddy is, don't Diss him neither.
[/list]
[list]
6.  Thou shalt not kill
          Don't be goin' on no drive bys.
[/list]
[list]
7.  Thou shalt not commit adultery    
          Stick to ya own Boo.
[/list]
[list]
8.  Thou shalt not steal
          Don't be borrow'n stuff and don't give it back.
[/list]
[list]
9.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother
          Don't be snitchin' on the otha' man to save your behind.
[/list]
[list]
10.  Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy brother.
            Don't be eyein' (skeeming) yo homie's crib, ride, woman, or nuffin.
[/list]

Logic Mind:

Not necessarily. I for one neither believe in god or evolution because there are holes in all those theories. I am honest with myself and say "i don't know". I don't know how come I'm here but all explanations so far have been proved inadequate.

It is good to be honest with yourself but one can be honest and be honestly wrong.  If you belong to the religion of "I don't know" that makes you an agnostic.  This is the real position of those who think that they are atheists.  There is nothing like atheism, it does not exist.  If there were no God there will be no atheists.  Hence, they are all agnostics.

Logic Mind:

Evolution is more believable than the silent powerless useless god creator.

You have a religion afterall.  The religion of evolutionism which influences your moral decisions.  There are moral absolutes and morality is not relative as you may have been misled to think.

smh

@Ola

Your grasp of logic is appalling. Your statement "If there is no God, there would be no atheists" does not make one bit of sense. If there is no God, wouldn't there be people that don't believe he exists??!

The 1st 4 of the ten commandments, "is go to church" "worship me" I'm the best" have no use to humans. Before African Chinese and American societies had contact with Abrahamic religions, didn't they have morality? Was the item "go to church" in it??

Common sense makes morality, And morality has its use for humans ONLY!

Evolution is a scientific theory. And this not the first time Religion has clashed with science as to what the Truth is.

Kay 17:

@Ola

Your grasp of logic is appalling. Your statement "If there is no God, there would be no atheists" does not make one bit of sense. If there is no God, wouldn't there be people that don't believe he exists??!

Your assertion is not a logical objection, it is merely a psychological opinion which you are entitled to.  If there is God then there will be those who think that they are atheists but if there were no God there will be no atheists.  The fact that it seems counter intuitive to you does not make you rational or logical, you are only telling us about your emotional state instead of presenting a genuine challenge to my comment.

Kay 17:

The 1st 4 of the ten commandments, "is go to church" "worship me" I'm the best" have no use to humans. Before African Chinese and American societies had contact with Abrahamic religions, didn't they have morality? Was the item "go to church" in it??

Atheists break this law by making god in their own images instead of acknowledging and accepting that God made man in His own image.  God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Do you know why we have a seven day week instead of say, 15 day week?  Do you know what would happen to your body and mind if you refuse to take at least a day off?  Those who are spiritually alive worship our redeemer and renew their strength.

Kay 17:

Common sense makes morality, And morality has its use for humans ONLY!

Absolute morality comes and flows from God which is a Christian worldview.  The moment you acknowledge Him as the Moral Law giver is the time you will realise where your morality came from and how it is universal.  Absolute morality does not comport with atheism, why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behaviour that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents in nature?  Any standard such as the case of necrophilia here would be subjective and arbitrary if we say that morality is relative.  If a necrophilia is abusing the body of a dead loved one of yours, say member of your family what would you feel?  Would you be angry when you see violent murder taking place but not angry when a lion is killing a goat? Do you feel like punishing the lion? since your evolution teaches you that we are just a bunch of chemicals accidentally coming together and if they truly are why do you think people has to be punished for killing one another?  Do you know why humanity has the propensity to worship?  Do you realise that atheists worship themselves or things?

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23).

Kay 17:

Evolution is a scientific theory. And this not the first time Religion has clashed with science as to what the Truth is.

Evolution is not science neither is religion faith.  Faith and science are not antagonistic to each other but rather, they complement each other.  Infact science confirms the Bible, I will say Truth and science is what we should be seeking for.  Science can only be interpreted in the light of the truth of the word of God.  Evolution is the religion of atheists and it is a theory without any foundation, thus it remains a fairytale.

Hahahaha,

If there were no gods, ppl wouldn't believe them, thus atheists.

If morality is objective and only Christian, then why are there cultures with their own code of morality??

Science searches for natural causes, so except you concede God is natural, until then science does not validate your religion.

Kay 17:

Hahahaha,

If there were no gods, ppl wouldn't believe them, thus atheists.

Counter-intuitive, eh?   If there were no God there will be no atheists.  What will atheists be yapping about if there were to be no God?  But since there are atheists there must be a God somewhere.

The Bible actually teaches us that atheists are not really atheists.  If you search your hearts of hearts you will find out that you do really believe in God.  Everyone born on earth actually knows God because God has revealed Himself to everyone. (Romans 1:19), and that you are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).  You may deny with your keyboard by you do know in your heart of hearts that there is God.  Why are you convincing yourself with these atheistic evolutionary theories that you don't believe in God?  This is what they call intellectual schizophrenia.  That is, you believe in God but you try to believe that you don't believe in God.

Kay 17:

If morality is objective and only Christian, then why are there cultures with their own code of morality??

If cultures make up their own moral codes who then is to say what a moral code should be?  Some cultures may think that it is appropriate to be racist, some other cultures may say it's alright to terminate the lives of babies, others such as our boko haram folks believe it is right for them kill people who would not convert to their religion.  So tell me, whose code of morality should we follow if morality is not absolute?

Kay 17:

Science searches for natural causes, so except you concede God is natural, until then science does not validate your religion.

Laws of logic stem from God's sovereign nature and they are a reflection of the way He thinks.  People like Albert Einstein said that he tries to think God's thought after Him and that enables Him to do good science.  Just as the law of logic is immaterial, universal, invarient, abstract entities and it is so because God is a Spirit (immaterial), His is omnipresent, unchanging God who is omniscience (Colossians 2:3).  Therefore, all true statements will be governed by God's thinking and thereby be logical.  So you can see that we can account for laws of logic and that they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth and we can know some of God's thoughts because He has revealed Himself to us through the Bible and the person of our Lord Jesus Christ.  But you cannot account for the laws of logic since you believe that everything has natural causes, does the law of logic have natural causes?

OLAADEGBU:

 
Your assertion is not a logical objection, it is merely a psychological opinion which you are entitled to.  If there is God then there will be those who think that they are atheists but if there were no God there will be no atheists.  The fact that it seems counter intuitive to you does not make you rational or logical, you are only telling us about your emotional state instead of presenting a genuine challenge to my comment.

Atheists break this law by making god in their own images instead of acknowledging and accepting that God made man in His own image.

What's the difference?

 
God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th.  Do you know why we have a seven day week instead of say, 15 day week?  Do you know what would happen to your body and mind if you refuse to take at least a day off? 

Igbos have a 4-day week.

The Javanese people of Indonesia have a five-day week known as the Pasaran cycle. This is still in use today and superimposed with seven-day week of the Gregorian calendar and Islamic calendar to become what is known as the 35-day Wetonan Cycle.

It is believed the ancient Celts of the British Isles used a nine-night week. The moon was used to measure one day from another so nights were more significant. The nine nights divided nicely into a sidereal month of 27 nights. Each week of nine nights had eight days

Ancient Egypt had a ten-day week, three weeks per month with five extra days at the end of the year.

The Maya divided a 260-day ritual cycle known Tzolk'in into 20 weeks of 13 days known as Trecena.


There are many more.

 Absolute morality comes and flows from God which is a Christian worldview.  The moment you acknowledge Him as the Moral Law giver is the time you will realise where your morality came from and how it is universal.  Absolute morality does not comport with atheism, why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behaviour that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents in nature?  Any standard such as the case of necrophilia here would be subjective and arbitrary if we say that morality is relative.  If a necrophilia is abusing the body of a dead loved one of yours, say member of your family what would you feel?  Would you be angry when you see violent murder taking place but not angry when a lion is killing a goat? Do you feel like punishing the lion? since your evolution teaches you that we are just a bunch of chemicals accidentally coming together and if they truly are why do you think people has to be punished for killing one another?  Do you know why humanity has the propensity to worship?  Do you realise that atheists worship themselves or things?

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things" (Romans 1:21-23).

Evolution is not science neither is religion faith.  Faith and science are not antagonistic to each other but rather, they complement each other.  Infact science confirms the Bible, I will say Truth and science is what we should be seeking for.  Science can only be interpreted in the light of the truth of the word of God.  Evolution is the religion of atheists and it is a theory without any foundation, thus it remains a fairytale.

I have more morals than your biblical god.

@Ola

If morality was absolute, then why isn't it uniform across the world??

People that don't believe in gods are called what??

Laws of logic simply stem from the act of thinking. Besides if they were relevant to you, why are clinging to faith rather logic?

Kay 17:

@Ola

If morality was absolute, then why isn't it uniform across the world??

Morality is uniform across the globe and it is called conscience until it gets muffled by worldly ideologies such as evolutionary lies.

Kay 17:

People that don't believe in gods are called what??

Everyone knows that there is God but some try to believe that they don't believe in God thus suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and this is called intellectual schizophrenia.

Kay 17:

Laws of logic simply stem from the act of thinking. Besides if they were relevant to you, why are clinging to faith rather logic?

Since you have been indoctrinated to think that everything has natural causes how come the laws of logic are immaterial?  You as an atheist cannot account for the laws of logic because they will not make sense to you if you are to be consistent with your evolution worldview.  How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big b ang?  Why should there be an absolute standard of thinking if everything is simply molecules in motion?  If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. 

Christians on the other hand can account for the laws of logic because we believe that they stem from God's sovereign nature and that they are a reflection of the way He thinks.  The laws of logic are the correct standard of thinking because God is sovereign over truth and we can know some of God's thoughts because of what He has revealed to us through Scriptures and the person of Jesus Christ.  Faith is having confidence in what our physical senses cannot see, touch, feel or hear and because of this Christians are being consistent with their worldview.

@Ola

Remember you are describing morality. Pls prove the uniformity in time and place. Prove that no moral rules have changed, and mention societies around the world that ve the same moral rules. Especially in places that ve been isolated for a long time.

I simply asked what people who don't believe God are called. Also prove that all atheists sincerely believe in some gods.

But if we follow laws of logic we would invariably have to reject virgin birth, Jesus' resurrection, the bible and all miracles.

Thoughts and ideas are natural, why would you think they are not?

Kay 17:

@Ola

Remember you are describing morality. Pls prove the uniformity in time and place. Prove that no moral rules have changed, and mention societies around the world that ve the same moral rules. Especially in places that ve been isolated for a long time.

God created human beings in His own image and so has the right to set the rules for our behaviour.  He is the Law giver and has given us the Moral Law which is in consonance with our conscience.  Why do you think we all need to love and to be loved? even though we try to fill that gap with alternatives which does not satisfy?  If laws of morality are just the adopted social customs in a particular time and place, then why was Adolf Hitler wrong?

Kay 17:

I simply asked what people who don't believe God are called.

They are called intellectual schizophrenics.   Though they believe in God they are believing that they don't believe in God.  It is a form of self deception where they try to convince themselves of what they want to believe (James 1:22).

Kay 17:

Also prove that all atheists sincerely believe in some gods.

Atheists denies with their lips what they know in their hearts.  See Romans 1:18-20 and you will see that God has revealed Himself to them and that they are just suppressing the truth and thus have no excuse.  The truth is that God is angry at "unbelievers" for their wickedness everyday.

Kay 17:

But if we follow laws of logic we would invariably have to reject virgin birth, Jesus' resurrection, the bible and all miracles.

This statement of yours is not rationally sound because it begs the question.  An all powerful God as described in the Scriptures would be capable of doing miracles.  The fact that you assume that miracles are impossible you have already dismissed the possibility that the Bible is true.  This is not a logical objection but a mere opinion that is not backed with evidence.

Kay 17:

Thoughts and ideas are natural, why would you think they are not?

According to your evolutionary worldview everything must be materialistic.  How does the material brain have access to the immaterial laws? and why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?  Why do we all believe (even though you say you don't have faith) laws of logic will be the same tomorrow as they are today, since we are not beyond time and have not experienced the future?

God created human beings in His own image and so has the right to set the rules for our behaviour.  He is the Law giver and has given us the Moral Law which is in consonance with our conscience.  Why do you think we all need to love and to be loved? even though we try to fill that gap with alternatives which does not satisfy?  If laws of morality are just the adopted social customs in a particular time and place, then why was Adolf Hitler wrong?

Where are the examples?? If you had provuded them I would ve agreed there was a universal law giver, but since you are unable to do, I would assume there is no universal code, thus no universal law giver.

They are called intellectual schizophrenics. Though they believe in God they are believing that they don't believe in God.  It is a form of self deception where they try to convince themselves of what they want to believe (James 1:22

Its like you ve struck out atheism from the dictionary. However, if God doesn't exist there would be "intellectual schizophrenics"

This statement of yours is not rationally sound because it begs the question.  An all powerful God as described in the Scriptures would be capable of doing miracles.  The fact that you assume that miracles are impossible you have already dismissed the possibility that the Bible is true.  This is not a logical objection but a mere opinion that is not backed with evidence

So myths can be rationalized in that sense, at least they involve supernatural beings doing their bit.

According to your evolutionary worldview everything must be materialistic.  How does the material brain have access to the immaterial laws? and why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws?  Why do we all believe (even though you say you don't have faith) laws of logic will be the same tomorrow as they are today, since we are not beyond time and have not experienced the future?

Marx says "I am thus I think" meaning the immaterial has order and makes sense with a material basis.

Also prove God exists and that the bible had a constant moral code.

Kay 17:

Where are the examples?? If you had provuded them I would ve agreed there was a universal law giver, but since you are unable to do, I would assume there is no universal code, thus no universal law giver.

Everyone would agree that it's idyllic we work towards the well-being of all, too find love, joy, peace and happiness, and everyone deems it necessary to know what's true and what's not. Most people generally agree with the Golden Rule. These are a basis from which we can infer that there are moral absolutes.

Kay 17:
Marx says "I am thus I think" meaning the immaterial has order and makes sense with a material basis.

The immaterial is what gives the material meaning. One can be without thinking, unfortunately that means such a person is dead.

Kay 17:
Also prove God exists and that the bible had a constant moral code.

I can't prove God any less than I can prove abstracts such as mind or love but God's existence can be inferred from the teleology we see in living things. Here is a nice 'Atheist's Riddle' that puts it succintly

[list]
[li]All codes we know of are designed[/li]
[li]The sequence of nucleobases in the DNA is a code[/li]
[li]We have 100% inference that the DNA is designed and 0% inference that it isn't[/li]
[/list]

Now don't jump around this by simply asserting that evolution is responsible for making the DNA because there's no inferential basis for this. To falsify my deduction above you'll need to point to a naturally-occurring coded system. See here for more. Note that, I altered the riddle, but the point is the same.