RichardMooner
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
- Messages
- 351
I am a Gnostic Christian and have no problem recognizing good from evil wit or without the Godhead that I know.
Strange that you cannot know without looking into you book first instead of your heart which is where Jesus said your laws should be written.
But your question assumed lack of belief I think and even if not, looking at atheists and how they recognize good and evil is more important here than what I believe. Let's have a look to see Christians are more moral with their book and God than atheists.
My morality is outward looking to see what others need before looking at my own needs. I mostly succeed but not always.
Yours as you have shown, may not be but you are trying to justify and I don't think you have done so. You seem to be hedging towards, --- we should look outwards to the needs of others first.
If that is so and that is the best in morals and the ideal position of morality, let me point out that your God does the opposite and is quite self-centered.
Why then do you not follow your God's example and do the wrong thing?
You are told by scripture to emulate him in all things.
Regards
DL
Maybe you should start reading a bit more and stop watching YouTube videos. First problem with the video, it argues with the Church, not the bible. Second problem, the hominidae genus evolved from Chimpanzees which are known to rip the scrotum, face, and fingers off of other chimps and eat them when angered. They're also cannibalistic, they rape each other, and murder entire colonies of other chimps when competing for food and territory. They will murder and eat their own mates when distressed or refused the opportunity to mate. Hey! Just like humans that don't make distinctions between right and wrong. Third and biggest problem with your petty video, "Godless" countries still have defined morals implemented throughout their cultures because of past beliefs and religious principles that have been pounded into their culture historically. Therefore, they still have "morality", they're common peoples are still "moral" but that is because they abide by moral principles that were created by past and present religions.
I'm not saying that people who do not believe in God don't have moral principles. I'm saying that if there is not God, if the universe was a complete and utter accident and there was no design behind it that set it in motion, then the moral principles that man has found within himself are meaningless. They're just "mystical" feelings that we cannot define as right or wrong because we cannot use reason to define them. By reason, I mean what falls under what we can understand using logic, reductionism, empiricism, etc.... And by mysticism, I mean what we cannot understand using those things.
I have made it relatively obvious, that I am not a Christian. My definition of God is any given "thing" that set the universe in motion with design. Not some personal God that tweaks our daily lives, but a God that designed the universe to move forward, and give life to us. With that, there were morals that were given to man, that may be inexplicable, but are there, and because they were given to man, they have meaning. They were meant to be here to govern man, to help him. They are defined and objective. Without that design, they are not defined and are not objective. You could argue that they are here to benefit our survival from an evolutionary perspective, but even then, what makes it right or wrong? If they're only here to keep our species alive, what makes the survival of our species good or bad? Simply because we "feel" that way? What if someone "feels" like they really need to murder an innocent person? Is it right because they "feel" that way? Is it wrong because you "feel" like it is? Because your given distinction of right and wrong is innate to our species, it is right? Well, murder, hatred, competition, oppression, and covet for power are innate to our species as well. Are they good too?
What about people who can "reach into their hearts and make distinctions between good and evil", but their distinctions are completely different than yours? Their argument is just as valid as yours. Take Mao, Lenin, or Hitler for example. Mao decided that the elimination of masses of people was for the good of the whole. Lenin the same thing. Both were atheist. Both were following the teachings of Marx who said "Religion is the opiate of the masses.". If you read Anti-Semitist propaganda pamphlets, it is made clear that the European people were thought to be "better off" if the Jews were removed from Europe because of their cultural differences and beliefs. What makes that wrong if that's truly what the Nazia felt was a "good" solution?
You believe that your morality being outward looking to see what others needs are, before you meet your own needs is good, correct? Why is it good? Answer that for me.
Last edited: