Mr_Anony:
That was not part of the question but my answer is God.
by the way, do you think there must be an authoritative source for morality?
If yes, what is it? If no, how so?

Mr_Anony:
Ok fine, I now challenge you to provide a moral judge that fits all those criteria other than God or better than God.

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.

2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive

3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.

6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)

mkmyers45:

Dude...did you read this post at all or is your childish brain on compulsive impulse to post without comprehending?

Reyginus: Quick to fish out the errors(maybe to humiliate), but slow to recommend a solution-THE HEART OF MAN

Reyginus: Show me where i went wrong then

I dont believe that an authority is overlying morality,but spirituality.To say that morality is linked to the existence of a godhead is illogical and cannot be proven, and that which cannot be proven is a fallacy.morality can exist in the presence/abscence of a godhead.Though the presence of an authority may command morality,it ll be a fallacy to restrict it there.The presence of atheists proves it to be a fallacy (except you are telling me that atheists believe subconsciously in God)

mkmyers45:

The authority talked about here is not restricted to a 'God-head'

Cheers

jackbauersballs:

I am more intellectually unsound than anybody in your family.
Dont think because you have access to a keyboard and internet, you are now a philosopher...
Have you not noticed how people have been taking pot shots at religion- christianity in particular, all in the name of defining an 'authoritative source'? Although i myself cannot define it


If I sit down to discuss with you and pick your brain, you will be the better for it...
However I will leave you to bask in your intelligence as i don't know better.

mkmyers45:

Sorry, Insults lead to hell...I want you to make heaven sir and your post is based on a toddler's daydream

Cheers

mkmyers45:

My Friend....

I will like to hear your own thoughts...

Cheers

lagerwhenindoubt: Can we please agree to one day (in earnest) recap all themes discussed so they are not continually recycled and re-thrashed year after year. with the same conclusions drawn from either sides of the participants

Purist:

I agree with Mazaje that morality is always dependent on place and time in history, and as you yourself rightly stated, "morality" is not possible without an objective reference point. I do see your what you're getting at here though.

However, the problem with "God" is that, considering the attributes generously bestowed upon him (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence), one would expect that his own sense of morality should easily transcend any time and place in history. According to the bible, he is the same yesterday, today and forever. Therefore, if God was "right" to have ordered genocide and slavery in the past, then by his very nature described in the bible, he still holds the same views today and tomorrow, and everyone should really be wary of him.

Now, if one of those super attributes were withdrawn, then maybe, just maybe, not many would have much "problems" with "God".

frosbel: Atheism is by definition a no God existence, but there still resides within these ingrates that gift of conscience and awareness of right or wrong , therefore it is not unusual to see some of these creatures exhibit some flashes of goodness from time to time.

However , when a state is founded on atheist ideologies like Maoism and Stalinism, what we have is a pretty much 'lawless' society where human life is devalued and morality becomes a relative term.

Just look at Russia and the effect of decades of atheism, Vodka addiction, violence, the most horrendous kind of racism and gross intolerance for the ideas for a democratic society.


Atheists without Christ are a lost cause and of all men to be the most pitied.

Only Christ can deliver them from their almost seemingly impenetrable blindness.

This is harsh but true.

Mr_Anony:

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?"

Mr_Anony:

I'll quote myself from another thread. This is what I said:

".........I will go on to say that for anything to be a true standard for morality
1. It must be all-powerful or at least more powerful than man i.e. must be powerful enough to punish evil and reward good.
2. It must be omniscient i.e. must be able to properly know and understand everything and every motive
3. It must be all-seeing i.e. must be able to see a case from every possible angle. No evidence should escape it.
4. It's laws must agree with man's conscience but must be able to determine when man deviates from the dictates of his conscience.
5. It must be impartial and must deliver justice irrespective of persons.
6. It must not waver and must not change with the wind i.e. what was once evil will not suddenly become good and vice versa(note this is different from it's permissiveness)
7. It must essentially be singular i.e. it must be of one mind and purpose and must not be self-contradicting.

It is to the extent that our legal systems meet these criteria that we justify them. Do you agree?"

jackbauersballs:

You assume that my assertion that you are wise is an insult.?
You assume wrongly.


A boy is a boy, a girl is a girl, and mkmyers45 is a wise man.
All verifiable facts.

Cheers.

Pastor AIO: I have a feeling we might have to abandon this thread soon Due to Front page disease.

frontpageisis.

Pastor AIO:


A ha! So we can start to see the problems we run into with those Savants that 'know' God so well and have him well-defined.

When we say 'God' is the same today yesterday and always what exactly are we referring to?

If a man is angry at 1pm and cools down by 3 pm and then is seen laughing at 5pm are we saying that he has changed and he is no longer the same man?

What remains essentially the same, and what is subjected to process? Can a thing be the same by yet manifest as different states of being?

What does the Emerald tablet mean when it says that all things are derived by the mediation of ONE thing?

Here is an translation of the first 3 lines by Idries Shah:

From Idres Shah


1) The truth, certainty, truest, without untruth.
2 )What is above is like what is below. What is below is like what is above. The miracle of unity is to be attained.
3) Everything is formed from the contemplation of unity, and all things come about from unity, by means of adaptation.

Here is Isaac Newton's translation:


1) Tis true without lying, certain & most true.
2) That wch is below is like that wch is above & that wch is above is like yt wch is below to do ye miracles of one only thing.
3) And as all things have been & arose from one by ye mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation.

Jabir Ibn Hayyan's translation:

1) Truth! Certainty! That in which there is no doubt!
2) That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one.
3) As all things were from one.

1) Here (is) a true explanation, concerning which there can be no doubt.
2) It attests: The above from the below, and the below from the above -the work of the miracle of the One.
3) And things have been from this primal substance through a single act. How wonderful is this work! It is the main (principle) of the world and is its maintainer.



Read more translations here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/emerald.htm

Kay 17: improper analogy

Morality is portrayed inseparable from God, a necessary consequence of the Nature of God himself. Therefore moral contents shouldn't if God doesn't change. However following Bible passages, there is the substantial difference which is undeniable, is witnessed btw the OT and the NT.

Also, today's values are very different from the bibical ages which is not unnatural.

ubcandid: look i am tired of people linking religion with morality.it has to do with ur response to your conscience and your self discipline as an individual.

mkmyers45:
I realize that atheists say that morality is some form of social conditioning or contract, but i think the most admired virtues: heroism, self-sacrifice, unselfishness, could not have evolved from a social contract because they do not prolong longevity or serve any self interest. so it leads me to ask if morality is truly possible without an authoritative force?

thehomer:

If by authoritative force you mean someone issuing decrees to be taken as moral pronouncements, then it is possible without such an entity.
What we need to understand at the core is that humans decide whether or not an act is moral based on the sorts of effects it has on sentient organisms. With this idea at the back of one's mind, one can arrive at various moral precepts without the need for such an authority and another effect of this is that it grants humans the ability to morally improve based on the degree of their understanding of where they find themselves.

Pastor AIO:

Difficulties: 'Nature' of God. Etymology of Nature - from Natus/nasci (latin) to be born. How was God 'born'?

It does not follow that if (big if) Morality is inseparable from God then morality mustn't change if God doesn't change.

Unless you want to equate Morality to God.

Creator creates Creation. Creator is unchanging, Creation undergoes constant evolution.

If I say that God is beyond our epistemological grasp KAG might wake up from the dead to accuse me of 'extolling the sense of the unknown'.

If you stopped trying to define God and stopped taking seriously those that do then you might find it a lot easier to deal with the evolution of morality. Or the evolution of absolutely everything else.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Agreed.
For example, when you stop at a red light, do you do so primarily because of the police(the authority) might catch and punish you if you did not, or , do you do so because your higher sense tells you that it is in the best interest of yours and other road users to do so?

Another example; political and military leaders are quick to send soldiers into war to figh for or to protect their personal or group interests. The soldiers march off to war, irrespective their opinions, because they are duty bound to do so. But the larger public, who are not duty bound to fight wars for political leaders, oppose the war and usuaaly turn out to protest because they can see, through their own inner conscience, the horrors of war.

The point here is that morality or ethical conduct does not need an authoritative source.

mkmyers45:

How does an individual develop morality according to you? Is it an innate trait? or something developed over time?

mkmyers45:

Consciously or unconsciously you obey a traffic light because for a split-second you think about what the 'authority' says about it.....Its a deciding factor in whether you stop or not...