Morality without religion or god(s)

[waggy]

religion has nothing to do with morality. ive noticed that some of the nastiest, most "immoral" and unethical people i know compulsively attend church. its almost like they think their behavior doesnt matter because their "faith" means theyre going to heaven anyway. on the other hand some of the straightest, most ethical people i know have nothing to do with religion, and so are obviously that way for nonreligious reasons. i think it all just comes down to personality. some people are immoral, some people arent, and whether they believe in religion, whether they are educated, whether they have dark or light hair, whether they drive a ferrari or a ford, etc... just has nothing to do with it.

agreed.

 

[spittledip]

absolute != objective
My moral code is absolute and I bet yours is as well. I also bet that while our codes have much in common they are not the same. From my perspective, where your code differs from mine you are wrong and immoral. I also suspect that where my code strays from yours you would necessarily view my code as wrong and me as immoral wrt to the portion of my code that differs from yours. No higher authority is necessary to arbitrate.

Absolute most certainly represents objective. Absolute is by definite something unchanging and unchangeable. Things that are subjective are subject to change among other things.

Morality is something that is applied at both the personal and societal level. The societal level of moral code comes from the individuals. The first conflict you have demonstrates that the codes are not absolute.

Also, as soon as my code allows me to interfere with you in a way that violates your moral code, the fallibility of both codes are demonstrated- whose code is right?

 

[Moonbeam]

I never made the distinction that self preservation was only for an individual at all. I stated that every behavior deemed "moral" is done so because somewhere, somehow, someone thought the action was prosperous to life as they know it.

From the beginning I stated that most life forms have found that preservation is easier working together than apart. But the working together is what makes organisms have to redefine moral codes from an individual to work for a group.


I also agree that many behaviors deemed as moral or immoral came from a mistaken case of thinking they were good or bad for preservation. And that even after learning the truth, the continued placement of the behavior into the wrong category happens because of tradition. Speaking of which, tradition has it's roots in preservation because it's better to not try to fix what isn't broken. And keeping things simple is also easier.

My whole line of posts was to address the OP about what is morality. That it has no real relational bearing on any religion what so ever. That actions labeled moral, immoral, or amoral are done so based on an individual or groups views of what works best for preservation of life. Nothing more and nothing less.

That is not right then, because life can preserve itself in misery and morality is to lift us from that. The aim of morality is quality of life. Moral genius is knowing what quality of life is. Morality then, is dependent on real knowledge and real spiritual education. The goal of morality is happiness. It is happiness that is the key.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Absolute most certainly represents objective.

I don't think you understand what "objective" means.

Absolute is by definite something unchanging and unchangeable.

"Unchanging and unchangeable" also does not equal "objective."

Things that are subjective are subject to change among other things.

That things can change does not mean that they must change.

Morality is something that is applied at both the personal and societal level. The societal level of moral code comes from the individuals. The first conflict you have demonstrates that the codes are not absolute.

No, it demonstrates that moral codes are not objective.

Also, as soon as my code allows me to interfere with you in a way that violates your moral code, the fallibility of both codes are demonstrated- whose code is right?

So what? You are unsatisfied with this circumstance so it must be false?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I find the question of what created the universe (the matter/energy prior to the big bang) to be a much harder one to answer.

What reason is there to believe that it was created?

 

[sandorski]

Another video that addresses Thread discussion

 

[spittledip]

I don't think you understand what "objective" means.

"Unchanging and unchangeable" also does not equal "objective."

You probably should explain yourself b/c morality being defined as objective is a pretty old and well known concept. I am confident that you actually know what I am talking about. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, which I highly doubt, go look it up.

No, it demonstrates that moral codes are not objective.

Absolute in this context refers to an unchangeable unalterable fact. If 2 people hold moral codes and they conflict, one must be wrong. If one is wrong then it demonstrates that the code is not fact at all, and therefore not absolute (facts are not wrong).

So what? You are unsatisfied with this circumstance so it must be false?

No, the prevalence of one code over another demonstrates that both codes cannot be right....

The guy I was responding to was trying to say that people can hold moral codes that are absolute which is really impossible on a very basic level. I suppose it could be possible if we lived completely independent of one another and never had any contact of any sort. No, actually, it still would be impossible. Even without contact a fact is a fact and one fact cannot contradict another fact.

 

[IronWing]

Objective supposes that there is some underlying universal "correct" moral code. There is no reason to believe that there is.

Absolute means that each tenet of one's moral code is inviolate, what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong according to the individual's moral code. One's moral code is always absolute. If one holds that what is right might be wrong then it isn't part of the individual's moral code. Also, absolute does not imply unchanging. People change and their moral codes sometimes change as well.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You probably should explain yourself b/c morality being defined as objective is a pretty old and well known concept.

Defining morality as objective doesn't make morality objective, Einstein.

I am confident that you actually know what I am talking about. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, which I highly doubt, go look it up.

I am very familiar with the idea.

Absolute in this context refers to an unchangeable unalterable fact. If 2 people hold moral codes and they conflict, one must be wrong.

This is your completely baseless claim.

If one is wrong then it demonstrates that the code is not fact at all, and therefore not absolute (facts are not wrong).

How do you know which one is wrong?

No, the prevalence of one code over another demonstrates that both codes cannot be right....

That would only be true if morality were objective, which is not something anyone -- especially you -- has been able to demonstrate.

The guy I was responding to was trying to say that people can hold moral codes that are absolute which is really impossible on a very basic level.

My personal moral code says that killing without justification is absolutely wrong.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??!??

I suppose it could be possible if we lived completely independent of one another and never had any contact of any sort. No, actually, it still would be impossible. Even without contact a fact is a fact and one fact cannot contradict another fact.

Right, but moral principles are beliefs, not facts. If you continue to defend the absurd notion that moral principles are facts, you will only continue to look silly.

 

[spittledip]

Another video that addresses Thread discussion

Quite frankly, I appreciate the very non-combative way the author made his case.

This video raises an important point, and that, for Christians, demonstrates the very basis of morality. For Christians, morality is this alone: subservience to God in all ways. Conversely, immorality is disobedience to God. It is really that simple.

Because God is the Creator and designer of the universe, He is, logically, the one who knows how everything should work b/c it is His world, His design, His creation. He makes the rules.

If someone goes against God in His own universe, the logical conclusion regarding the individual's actions are that they are disobeying God.

When someone breaks the law and is punished for breaking the law (let's say they were speeding), this is called justice. When God chooses to punish people for going against Him, it is Justice.

Now, if you remember the teachings of Jesus, you will remember that He helped flesh out what God's law really was. People like to say that Jesus was this softy and made the "God of the Old Testament" look like a big meanie. Actually, Jesus' teachings were much more strict and rigid. Jesus said that if you look at a woman and lust after her in your heart you have committed adultery. Jesus said that what defiles a person are the inward thoughts of the heart. The laws of the Old Testament merely described acts, but Jesus went after motives and thoughts.

I bring the above paragraph up to explain how much we actually sin before God. We all deserve the fires of hell, we all deserve to be stoned to death, we all deserve to be shackled like slaves. God is just in delivering these punishments, but He is obviously much more gracious and merciful than just b/c we do not deserve all the chances He gives us on a daily basis.

I like the term the author used, "apologetic gymnastics", b/c I used to be somewhat like that myself and I see people try to "apologize" for God and His acts. However, when you get logical about the whole situation and realize that we are on an hourly and minute by minute basis sinning against God in His world, you understand that when God does not punish us, which we all deserved ages ago, He is being gracious to us. I know many of you will find this objectionable, but I don't think it is possible to find this illogical. Unless you think God owes you something. God doesn't owe any of us jack.

 

[sandorski]

Quite frankly, I appreciate the very non-combative way the author made his case.

This video raises an important point, and that, for Christians, demonstrates the very basis of morality. For Christians, morality is this alone: subservience to God in all ways. Conversely, immorality is disobedience to God. It is really that simple.

Because God is the Creator and designer of the universe, He is, logically, the one who knows how everything should work b/c it is His world, His design, His creation. He makes the rules.

If someone goes against God in His own universe, the logical conclusion regarding the individual's actions are that they are disobeying God.

When someone breaks the law and is punished for breaking the law (let's say they were speeding), this is called justice. When God chooses to punish people for going against Him, it is Justice.

Now, if you remember the teachings of Jesus, you will remember that He helped flesh out what God's law really was. People like to say that Jesus was this softy and made the "God of the Old Testament" look like a big meanie. Actually, Jesus' teachings were much more strict and rigid. Jesus said that if you look at a woman and lust after her in your heart you have committed adultery. Jesus said that what defiles a person are the inward thoughts of the heart. The laws of the Old Testament merely described acts, but Jesus went after motives and thoughts.

I bring the above paragraph up to explain how much we actually sin before God. We all deserve the fires of hell, we all deserve to be stoned to death, we all deserve to be shackled like slaves. God is just in delivering these punishments, but He is obviously much more gracious and merciful than just b/c we do not deserve all the chances He gives us on a daily basis.

I like the term the author used, "apologetic gymnastics", b/c I used to be somewhat like that myself and I see people try to "apologize" for God and His acts. However, when you get logical about the whole situation and realize that we are on an hourly and minute by minute basis sinning against God in His world, you understand that when God does not punish us, which we all deserved ages ago, He is being gracious to us. I know many of you will find this objectionable, but I don't think it is possible to find this illogical. Unless you think God owes you something. God doesn't owe any of us jack.

If "God" tells you to do Evil, you do Evil. Good to know.

 

[Jeff7]

I suppose I could have wrote that better. We're Meat, God eats Meat, demands us to be Pure in many ways, it also seems to be rather Picky about things. God also talks a lot about Harvesting and Feasting. Impure cast into fire, Pure taken to his home where a feast occurs.

Or we're yeast in God's bread.

Yeast: They're given a paradise where their primary purpose is to breed profusely, and to consume sugar and make carbon dioxide and alcohol. We're also quite proficient at doing these things.
Then the yeast all ends up dying in a place which may in fact be very near to a fire, and then you get to "be with" God.
:hmm:
All this talk of global warming - God's just preheating the oven.

That text merely reflects that slavery was practiced at the time, but doesn't endorse it.

Doesn't condemn it either. Gives tacit approval.

"I'm not gonna say that slavery's ok. However, if you were to have slaves, and if you decided to beat them, here are some good pointers on how to beat them most effectively."
(Yes, the Bible does also describe permissible ways to beat slaves.)


So how can we apply this to our own laws?
"I'm not going to say anything about murder being good or bad. But, if you were to kill someone, hiding the body is going to be really important. If you were to coat the body with a fast-hardening epoxy resin, preferably purchased with cash, and then you bound the epoxied body to a sack of bricks and disposed of it in a deep lake, it would be pretty tough to trace it back to you. But I'm not going to say anything at all about the ethical implications of murder.
For an overview of the simplest ways to bloodlessly kill someone, please see Table 3:1."

Nope, I see absolutely no endorsement of murder in any of that. Murder's just something that people do at the time this is being written, so I guess it's prudent to give them some helpful information so they'll do it right.

In Christianity, the Bible was written by God through man. It can't be both ways. Either the Bible is infallible because God gave the words to write, or man wrote it and thus subject to the flaws of man. There is no grey area.

I just can't help but think of how mangled some of the meaning has to have been in being translated.

I happened to think of the "Better Nate than lever" part of that "longest joke."
That only really works in English. Translate that, and it's pretty likely that it's not going to come out anything close to "Better late than never" in how the two phrases sound (An "oronym," evidently).
It's bad enough just keeping word meanings straight in our own language.
Calculus: A branch of mathematics that deals with rates of change.
Also a hard deposit that forms on your teeth; tartar. Not to be confused with cream of tartar, which is also nothing to do with tartar sauce.

Lumen: A unit of measuring luminous flux.
Also a biological term for the inside of a tubular structure.

^^ Exactly - if you compare the atrocities committed by the God from the Bible, compared with the Devil from the Bible, it's pretty clear that the God from the Bible looks like an amoral monster in comparison. Why anybody would want to worship such a terrible entity is beyond me.

While we're modeling other laws after the Bible's shining example...
If you go to jail for life, all of your offspring will also be held guilty of your crime, and shall be punished for your crime, as will all of your descendents.
But at some point, the warden's son was killed, which, it was said, was so that the inmates' crimes would be forgiven.
Everyone in the jail still has to stay there, but once they die of old age, they'll be posthumously forgiven. Their offspring still have to stay in the jail though; they too will be forgiven, but only after they die.

What a dandy system that would be.




Morality without religion: The Universe's properties were conducive to permitting our formation. As collections of atoms that have the ability to discern their own existence and form, we've also noticed that we dislike certain things, such as activities which either do threaten our continued existence (bodily harm), or things which mimic threats to our continued existence (torture). So, one way to minimize these sorts of occurrences (suffering) is to establish systems which strive to guide the behavior of these numerous complicated collections of sentient atoms, in an attempt to attain that desired minimization of suffering. As individuals, we also determined that the wellbeing of the whole is not the sole priority; individuals also carry some value, and so great effort will sometimes be used to aid and protect a single person.

That's about what we've got for a sense of ethical behavior. Is it 100% objectively perfect? I'm going to say that it's quite likely that the answer is "no." That doesn't mean we need to adopt an all-or-nothing mentality and discard it until we simply stumble upon perfection.

Purpose: The laws of physics present in this Universe were such that it's possible us to exist. And here we are. Might as well make the most of it.
And yet, here I am on this forum. Ok...a revision:
Might as well make something of it.

 

[sandorski]

Or we're yeast in God's bread.

Yeast: They're given a paradise where their primary purpose is to breed profusely, and to consume sugar and make carbon dioxide and alcohol. We're also quite proficient at doing these things.
Then the yeast all ends up dying in a place which may in fact be very near to a fire, and then you get to "be with" God.
:hmm:
All this talk of global warming - God's just preheating the oven.




"I'm not gonna say that slavery's ok. However, if you were to have slaves, and if you decided to beat them, here are some good pointers on how to beat them most effectively."
(Yes, the Bible does also describe permissible ways to beat slaves.)


So how can we apply this to our own laws?
"I'm not going to say anything about murder being good or bad. But, if you were to kill someone, hiding the body is going to be really important. If you were to coat the body with a fast-hardening epoxy resin, preferably purchased with cash, and then you bound the epoxied body to a sack of bricks and disposed of it in a deep lake, it would be pretty tough to trace it back to you. But I'm not going to say anything at all about the ethical implications of murder.
For an overview of the simplest ways to bloodlessly kill someone, please see Table 3:1."

Nope, I see absolutely no endorsement of murder in any of that. Murder's just something that people do at the time this is being written, so I guess it's prudent to give them some helpful information so they'll do it right.




I just can't help but think of how mangled some of the meaning has to have been in being translated.

I happened to think of the "Better Nate than lever" part of that "longest joke."
That only really works in English. Translate that, and it's pretty likely that it's not going to come out anything close to "Better late than never" in how the two phrases sound (An "oronym," evidently).
It's bad enough just keeping word meanings straight in our own language.
Calculus: A branch of mathematics that deals with rates of change.
Also a hard deposit that forms on your teeth; tartar. Not to be confused with cream of tartar, which is also nothing to do with tartar sauce.

Lumen: A unit of measuring luminous flux.
Also a biological term for the inside of a tubular structure.



While we're modeling other laws after the Bible's shining example...
If you go to jail for life, all of your offspring will also be held guilty of your crime, and shall be punished for your crime, as will all of your descendents.
But at some point, the warden's son was killed, which, it was said, was so that the inmates' crimes would be forgiven.
Everyone in the jail still has to stay there, but once they die of old age, they'll be posthumously forgiven. Their offspring still have to stay in the jail though; they too will be forgiven, but only after they die.

What a dandy system that would be.




Morality without religion: The Universe's properties were conducive to permitting our formation. As collections of atoms that have the ability to discern their own existence and form, we've also noticed that we dislike certain things, such as activities which either do threaten our continued existence (bodily harm), or things which mimic threats to our continued existence (torture). So, one way to minimize these sorts of occurrences (suffering) is to establish systems which strive to guide the behavior of these numerous complicated collections of sentient atoms, in an attempt to attain that desired minimization of suffering. As individuals, we also determined that the wellbeing of the whole is not the sole priority; individuals also carry some value, and so great effort will sometimes be used to aid and protect a single person.

That's about what we've got for a sense of ethical behavior. Is it 100% objectively perfect? I'm going to say that it's quite likely that the answer is "no." That doesn't mean we need to adopt an all-or-nothing mentality and discard it until we simply stumble upon perfection.

Purpose: The laws of physics present in this Universe were such that it's possible us to exist. And here we are. Might as well make the most of it.
And yet, here I am on this forum. Ok...a revision:
Might as well make something of it.

:biggrin:

Good post.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I just can't help but think of how mangled some of the meaning has to have been in being translated.

I happened to think of the "Better Nate than lever" part of that "longest joke."
That only really works in English. Translate that, and it's pretty likely that it's not going to come out anything close to "Better late than never" in how the two phrases sound (An "oronym," evidently).
It's bad enough just keeping word meanings straight in our own language.
Calculus: A branch of mathematics that deals with rates of change.
Also a hard deposit that forms on your teeth; tartar. Not to be confused with cream of tartar, which is also nothing to do with tartar sauce.

Lumen: A unit of measuring luminous flux.
Also a biological term for the inside of a tubular structure.

Good post, I'm just going to reply to the part where you quoted me. I 100% agree with you, and not to go off topic here, but so does the nation of Islam.

I've had discussions in the past with Muslims, and this was a big argument for them. They claimed that the Quran was never translated, and is the same today as it's original version.

I said that's cool, I'm still anti-theist and not a believer in any one religion. There's too many belief systems to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that one is true and another is not. And to top is off, no religious belief system should be spread through violence and fear...that's where I lose my agnosticism and turn anti-theist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quite frankly, I appreciate the very non-combative way the author made his case.

This video raises an important point, and that, for Christians, demonstrates the very basis of morality. For Christians, morality is this alone: subservience to God in all ways. Conversely, immorality is disobedience to God. It is really that simple.

Because God is the Creator and designer of the universe, He is, logically, the one who knows how everything should work b/c it is His world, His design, His creation. He makes the rules.

If someone goes against God in His own universe, the logical conclusion regarding the individual's actions are that they are disobeying God.

When someone breaks the law and is punished for breaking the law (let's say they were speeding), this is called justice. When God chooses to punish people for going against Him, it is Justice.

Now, if you remember the teachings of Jesus, you will remember that He helped flesh out what God's law really was. People like to say that Jesus was this softy and made the "God of the Old Testament" look like a big meanie. Actually, Jesus' teachings were much more strict and rigid. Jesus said that if you look at a woman and lust after her in your heart you have committed adultery. Jesus said that what defiles a person are the inward thoughts of the heart. The laws of the Old Testament merely described acts, but Jesus went after motives and thoughts.

I bring the above paragraph up to explain how much we actually sin before God. We all deserve the fires of hell, we all deserve to be stoned to death, we all deserve to be shackled like slaves. God is just in delivering these punishments, but He is obviously much more gracious and merciful than just b/c we do not deserve all the chances He gives us on a daily basis.

I like the term the author used, "apologetic gymnastics", b/c I used to be somewhat like that myself and I see people try to "apologize" for God and His acts. However, when you get logical about the whole situation and realize that we are on an hourly and minute by minute basis sinning against God in His world, you understand that when God does not punish us, which we all deserved ages ago, He is being gracious to us. I know many of you will find this objectionable, but I don't think it is possible to find this illogical. Unless you think God owes you something. God doesn't owe any of us jack.

One can read words of truth, speak the words of truth, think one understands the words of truth, and still not really understand them. Morality is subservience to God's will, not our opinion of what God's will is. To act according to God's will in the Christian sense one must have no will of one's own. In order to have no will of one's own one will have to have died to his own will. This is a transformation that is not common and happens by grace. One cannot will the end of one's own ego. We are the image of God and that image is invisible so long as we are ego. His will be done on earth as in heaven when the image of God as man, Christ, is revealed by the spirit. Do not assume, do not judge, surrender and die on the cross. Sin exists not because of disobedience. One has to know the law to disobey. Sin exists because of separation.

Where you will go wrong, in my opinion, is in the assumption you already know God's will but have not surrendered your own. To surrender your will is to open the door to love.

To live as ego is to live in the world of good and evil, to be tested and tired, to struggle against sin. To love God as God loves you is oneness that admits of no sin. You do not conquer sin. There is only God. There is no good or evil. There is only God now. The now is God's will and love wills it into being.

 

[Jeff7]

Good post, I'm just going to reply to the part where you quoted me. I 100% agree with you, and not to go off topic here, but so does the nation of Islam.

I've had discussions in the past with Muslims, and this was a big argument for them. They claimed that the Quran was never translated, and is the same today as it's original version.

I said that's cool, I'm still anti-theist and not a believer in any one religion. There's too many belief systems to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that one is true and another is not. And to top is off, no religious belief system should be spread through violence and fear...that's where I lose my agnosticism and turn anti-theist.

:hmm:
What if the path to the one true religion is in fact one of violence and fear? There's no requirement that the one true religion is a just, fair, or pleasant one. :awe:

 

[spittledip]

If "God" tells you to do Evil, you do Evil. Good to know.

God can't tell you to do evil. Anything God tells you to do is good b/c God is the definer of good. You cannot define good.

 

[ch33zw1z]

:hmm:
What if the path to the one true religion is in fact one of violence and fear? There's no requirement that the one true religion is a just, fair, or pleasant one. :awe:

Until that's a proven thing, I'll stand by my statement. It's not what if, it's what is.

 

[IronWing]

God can't tell you to do evil. Anything God tells you to do is good b/c God is the definer of good. You cannot define good.

Again, we're back to a tautology. God is by my definition good therefore god is good. Have you ever met someone whose god didn't generally agree with their own point of view on things?

 

[spittledip]

One can read words of truth, speak the words of truth, think one understands the words of truth, and still not really understand them. Morality is subservience to God's will, not our opinion of what God's will is. To act according to God's will in the Christian sense one must have no will of one's own. In order to have no will of one's own one will have to have died to his own will. This is a transformation that is not common and happens by grace. One cannot will the end of one's own ego. We are the image of God and that image is invisible so long as we are ego. His will be done on earth as in heaven when the image of God as man, Christ, is revealed by the spirit. Do not assume, do not judge, surrender and die on the cross. Sin exists not because of disobedience. One has to know the law to disobey. Sin exists because of separation.

I definitely agree that the surrender of the will is an act of grace- sin really prevents us from surrendering to God. It is also an act of the will as well it seems, but I do not understand how God works or how this exactly works together, I just accept it, or try to accept it. Like Jesus said to Nicodemus (paraphrase)," You see the wind and the effects of the wind and where it blows, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. Such is the Spirit of God"

Sin does exist b/c of disobedience though, and there is separation with God b/c of sin.

Where you will go wrong, in my opinion, is in the assumption you already know God's will but have not surrendered your own. To surrender your will is to open the door to love.

Well, we take back our own will all the time. It is hard to continually surrender one's will. It is pretty much a moment by moment thing... I am not sure if there were any or are any that are good at it except for Christ, who is God of course. The push is to really know God's ways and to know God Himself- this is partly what changes a person. In alot of ways we are pretty free, it is really only in areas of sin that we are not "free", i.e. we are out of God's will if we sin. This includes not doing the good you know to do.

To live as ego is to live in the world of good and evil, to be tested and tired, to struggle against sin. To love God as God loves you is oneness that admits of no sin. You do not conquer sin. There is only God. There is no good or evil. There is only God now. The now is God's will and love wills it into being.

[/QUOTE]

I am fairly certain we do not have the capacity to love God as God loves us in this life. Technically we have the capacity in Him, but to be fully given over in this life is probably impossible b/c we still have this body of sin as it says in Romans 7 I believe. Although I have to admit I am not quite sure of all you are saying here.

 

[sandorski]

God can't tell you to do evil. Anything God tells you to do is good b/c God is the definer of good. You cannot define good.

God has definitely told people to do Evil. Sorry, those are the Facts, straight from the Bible itself. Your failure to see it is what is most disturbing.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the most important point, I think. It is because we do not believe in ourselves that we were told of God's love. We believe in sin, good and evil, when all that exists is Love. It does not matter who is the Lover and who the Beloved in the Oneness of Love.

Oneness and duality are different states, the difference between knowing about the wind and being it.

 

[spittledip]

Again, we're back to a tautology. God is by my definition good therefore god is good. Have you ever met someone whose god didn't generally agree with their own point of view on things?

God is not by my definition good. God is the be all and end all. This is His world, he created it. B/C he owns it and created it, it is His to with as He pleases. If someone mischaracterizes His actions as evil, it is b/c they do not understand their place in the world, their responsibility as a being in God's world, or God's place in the world.

 

[IronWing]

God is not by my definition good. God is the be all and end all. This is His world, he created it. B/C he owns it and created it, it is His to with as He pleases. If someone mischaracterizes His actions as evil, it is b/c they do not understand their place in the world, their responsibility as a being in God's world, or God's place in the world.

I'm not going to talk to your sock puppet. Assigning superpowers to an entity that likely only exists in one's head and then declaring this entity the font of all morality is silly. There is simply no basis for anyone to assign credibility to such claims. Each person has moral positions and each is responsible for their own moral codes. Attempting to pass off responsibility for one's morals to a sock puppet is irresponsible at best and craven at worst.

 

[sandorski]

God is not by my definition good. God is the be all and end all. This is His world, he created it. B/C he owns it and created it, it is His to with as He pleases. If someone mischaracterizes His actions as evil, it is b/c they do not understand their place in the world, their responsibility as a being in God's world, or God's place in the world.

This god you speak of is no different than any Greek concept of god. I know my place, even if your god existed, I couldn't bring myself to respecting it. May as well worship Kim Jong's dad if that's your god. It is virtually the same thing.