Can Man Be Good Without God?

[shunyadragon]

But Shuny when I speak of objective morality I'm speaking only about the commands and laws of God, which are moral in nature and have their source in God who is objective to mankind.

I do not consider 'objective' to be appropriate here. I said this before, traditional Christians often use the concept of objective morality to refer to some sort of absolute unchangeable morality of God. The laws and commandments we see in the bible lack this absoluteness proposed, by being in some way 'objective.'

Ok, then tell me why God gave us laws and commandments to live by? Why did He give them?

So that we may learn to love and know God, and become closer to God. God does not prefer it, God Commands it.

Again, if attributes like love, justice, mercy, goodness etc... are not moral in nature then what are they? Amoral?

They are neither moral nor amoral.

Answered that . . .

They are attributes of God that are reflected in the positive morals and of humanity. Again, morals and ethics are human attributes of social and cultural behavior.

[seer]

I do not consider 'objective' to be appropriate here. I said this before, traditional Christians often use the concept of objective morality to refer to some sort of absolute unchangeable morality of God. The laws and commandments we see in the bible lack this absoluteness proposed, by being in some way 'objective.'

You like definitions Shuny, objective and absolute have two different meanings. And my definition holds for God's law. Of course God's moral character is absolute, but you don't believe He has a moral character so the point is moot.

So that we may learn to love and know God, and become closer to God. God does not prefer it, God Commands it.

Ok, so He wants us to get closer to Him as opposed to remaining distant?

They are neither moral nor amoral.

Answered that . . .

They are attributes of God that are reflected in the positive morals and of humanity. Again, morals and ethics are human attributes of social and cultural behavior.

That is a contradiction, either they are moral in nature or they are not. If they are not then God, and His attributes, are amoral.

[JimL]

James, we have been here before. I have no problem with the just war theory - self defense is not a moral evil. In light of that N.T. ethics are more concerned with our personal inter actions, not what nation states do. So for instance things like adultery, stealing, lying, fornication, unbelief, hypocrisy, etc… are always wrong. On a personal level.

Well, wouldn't agree that the bombing of Japan could be considered moral only in the relative sense of the survival of the culture? Surely there is no way to defend the killing of thousands of innocent civilians by means of an objective standard of morality. To define the morality of an action differently depending upon whether it is an individual or a state who commits the act is to define it in relative terms. I don't think that you can disengage yourself from the actions of your state if you agree with those actions and therefore if you agree with the killing of innocent civilians then it is no less personal an act for you than if you were the pilot that actually dropped the bomb. I'm not here making the judgement of whether it was right or wrong, I'm just making the point that you can't, in my opinion, separate individual from state and maintain a consistent argument for objective morality.

[seer]

Well, wouldn't agree that the bombing of Japan could be considered moral only in the relative sense of the survival of the culture? Surely there is no way to defend the killing of thousands of innocent civilians by means of an objective standard of morality. To define the morality of an action differently depending upon whether it is an individual or a state who commits the act is to define it in relative terms. I don't think that you can disengage yourself from the actions of your state if you agree with those actions and therefore if you agree with the killing of innocent civilians then it is no less personal an act for you than if you were the pilot that actually dropped the bomb. I'm not here making the judgement of whether it was right or wrong, I'm just making the point that you can't, in my opinion, separate individual from state and maintain a consistent argument for objective morality.

Well Jim I don't think that follows. There could be, and in fact are, different rules for a nation state and individuals. And if God given then they again are objective. We see this in our own laws. If a man kills a loved one we do not have the legal right to take his life. The state certainly does. This is reflected in scripture concerning laws against personal revenage, and the state administrating justice as in Rom.13:1-4. And I don't not think that what happened to Japan was in anyway "relative." I believe that action would be just on any occasion where we were first attacked, and where the attacker refused a generous offer for surrender. And keep in mind, it has been argued by both historians, and the Japanese leadership (after the fact), that a lot more lives on both sides would have been lost if we did in invade.

[phaedrus]

Well Jim I don't think that follows. There could be, and in fact are, different rules for a nation state and individuals. And if God given then they again are objective. We see this in our own laws. If a man kills a loved one we do not have the legal right to take his life. The state certainly does. This is reflected in scripture concerning laws against personal revenage, and the state administrating justice as in Rom.13:1-4. And I don't not think that what happened to Japan was in anyway "relative." I believe that action would be just on any occasion where we were first attacked, and where the attacker refused a generous offer for surrender. And keep in mind, it has been argued by both historians, and the Japanese leadership (after the fact), that a lot more lives on both sides would have been lost if we did in invade.

Isn't that a question of the lesser of two evils rather than this stark moral/immoral line you want to draw?

And groups of individuals have different objective standards to individuals? Sounds problematic to me.Does a club have a different morality to its members? If a country club is anti-Semitic but you're not, is it ok to be s member? Who defines what a nation is?

[seer]

Isn't that a question of the lesser of two evils rather than this stark moral/immoral line you want to draw?

Living in a sinful world it's probably all a choice of the lesser of two evils. Having said that some acts are just and some unjust. What we did to Japan or even Germany was just

And groups of individuals have different objective standards to individuals? Sounds problematic to me.Does a club have a different morality to its members? If a country club is anti-Semitic but you're not, is it ok to be s member? Who defines what a nation is?

Not probematic at all. Again, you see a man kill a loved one. He gets away, later the police catch him - do you have the legal right, if you can get to him, to kill him? But the state does have the legal right to take his life. The state has rights and responsibilities that the individual does not. Why you would even argue this obvious fact P is beyond me.

[phaedrus]

Living in a sinful world it's probably all a choice of the lesser of two evils. Having said that some acts are just and some unjust. What we did to Japan or even Germany was just



Not probematic at all. Again, you see a man kill a loved one. He gets away, later the police catch him - do you have the legal right, if you can get to him, to kill him? But the state does have the legal right to take his life. The state has rights and responsibilities that the individual does not. Why you would even argue this obvious fact P is beyond me.

YOUR state has the right to kill him. My state does not. Is one more moral than the other?

[seer]

YOUR state has the right to kill him. My state does not. Is one more moral than the other?

Sure, my state is more just.

[phaedrus]

Sure, my state is more just.

lol, based on what criteria? And when did this discussion become about what is just? I thought we were talking about what is moral. Are they synonyms for you?

[seer]

lol, based on what criteria? And when did this discussion become about what is just? I thought we were talking about what is moral. Are they synonyms for you?

Sure, what is moral should also be just - at least in some cases - don't you think? Especially when it comes to the state.

[JimL]

Well Jim I don't think that follows. There could be, and in fact are, different rules for a nation state and individuals. And if God given then they again are objective. We see this in our own laws. If a man kills a loved one we do not have the legal right to take his life. The state certainly does. This is reflected in scripture concerning laws against personal revenage, and the state administrating justice as in Rom.13:1-4. And I don't not think that what happened to Japan was in anyway "relative." I believe that action would be just on any occasion where we were first attacked, and where the attacker refused a generous offer for surrender. And keep in mind, it has been argued by both historians, and the Japanese leadership (after the fact), that a lot more lives on both sides would have been lost if we did in invade.

Well, I am not arguing that our actions against Japan were immoral but only that the moral imperative that says "thou shalt not kill" is a relative not an objective imperative. The morality of the act is subjectively determined. The killing of innocents is only immoral if it is subjectively determined to be so, not because of an objective law set in stone from on high.

[phaedrus]

Sure, what is moral should also be just - at least in some cases - don't you think? Especially when it comes to the state.

I would say based on history and current observation that states are much less likely to act morally than individuals are. States seem to act almost entirely for their own interest. Moral behaviour often requires us to act against self interest. This btw has nothing to do with our difference of opinion about the source of morality. Just my observation.

[shunyadragon]

You like definitions Shuny, objective and absolute have two different meanings. And my definition holds for God's law. Of course God's moral character is absolute, but you don't believe He has a moral character so the point is moot.

This does not make sense. Yes they have two different meanings, but you admit that you equate objective morality as God's moral character as absolute. I understand that, but I disagree with your use of terminology to argue that human morality has to be based on an illusive, vague, undefined objective morality of God. You loose the atheists and agnostics with this argument, because it is simply an assertion on your part without anything to back it up.

Ok, so He wants us to get closer to Him as opposed to remaining distant?

This says nothing, please reread my responses.

That is a contradiction, either they are moral in nature or they are not. If they are not then God, and His attributes, are amoral.

Not so, morals and ethics are human attributes based on the attributes of God. You may believe as you wish but my view is consistent with the definition of morals and ethics in the dictionary. It generally describes them as human attributes.

[seer]

Well, I am not arguing that our actions against Japan were immoral but only that the moral imperative that says "thou shalt not kill" is a relative not an objective imperative. The morality of the act is subjectively determined. The killing of innocents is only immoral if it is subjectively determined to be so, not because of an objective law set in stone from on high.

No Jim, "thou shalt not murder" certainly is an objective imperative. That does not mean, nor did it ever mean, that all killing was wrong.

[seer]

I would say based on history and current observation that states are much less likely to act morally than individuals are. States seem to act almost entirely for their own interest. Moral behaviour often requires us to act against self interest. This btw has nothing to do with our difference of opinion about the source of morality. Just my observation.

Ok...