Does morality require a god?

[zil]

Paul said it best, IMO (JST included, emphasis mine):

Quote

 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, except he has the Spirit of God.

 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

More seems pointless.

[omegaseamaster75]

57 minutes ago, EricE said:

Can we agree that one person's personal revelation is only hearsay to everyone else?

I don't speak for others but I can say that yes.

58 minutes ago, EricE said:

No matter which religion and/or god you believe in, there are more people who have and do believe in something else. And each claim to have personal revelation confirming the truth of their beliefs. 

Yup I agree with that also.

58 minutes ago, EricE said:

Not all religions can be correct (they're too contradictory), but it is possible that all are false. 

Again I agree, not all religions are correct and there may be a chance that they are all false also.

59 minutes ago, EricE said:

Therefore we need to mechanism for determining which is true. 

Do we? 

59 minutes ago, EricE said:

Since personal revelation is demonstrably poor at determining what is true, we need to find something else. I'm open to suggestions.

There is nothing else, claims can be made about the veracity and historical accuracy of the bible but no such claims can be made about the BOM so we only have faith and personal revelation to go on. 

Suggestion: 

You are atheist so there is no God.

I am not atheist so I believe in a higher power, as to who is right and who is wrong I'll have to let you know. When I die and if there is an afterlife I'll send you a message, when you die....well I guess I just won't hear from you so I'll assume that you were right.

[Guest Godless]

One of the last Gospel Doctrines classes I attended (as the guest of a couple who were kind enough to let me crash on their couch) featured a lesson on obedience from 1 Samuel chapter 15, in which King Saul is issued the following command:

"3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

Saul kills every living person in Amalek, but spares some of the animals as sacrifices to God. As a result, Saul is chastised and deemed unfit to be king. This lesson didn't have much impact on me. I had already come to terms with my beliefs and while the use of this story was puzzling, I didn't think much of it. My friends, on the other hand, were mortified. I'm not sure if they had been previously unfamiliar with this story, or had just never fully grasped the reality of what the Israelites did in those Old Testament stories, but they were deeply shaken by the fact that God would order the obliteration of an entire city, the same God who told these same people that killing is wrong. It brings up a multitude of important questions. What do we do when God gives us a commandment that contradicts one of his other commandments? How morally flexible must we be to follow such a God without question? How do you justify these actions to those who don't believe in your God? And most importantly, are there limits to what you'd be willing to do in God's name?

Edited August 10, 2016 by Godless

[tesuji]

55 minutes ago, Godless said:

What do we do when God gives us a commandment that contradicts one of his other commandments? How morally flexible must we be to follow such a God without question? How do you justify these actions to those who don't believe in your God? And most importantly, are there limits to what you'd be willing to do in God's name?

The Book of Mormon addresses this toward the very beginning of the book, with the story of Nephi killing Laban.

Here's a good description and discussion:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/02/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[unixknight]

Apologies if this point has already been made. 

17 hours ago, EricE said:

Many LDS friends have tried to convince me that morality necessarily comes from a god. But is that the case?

Simplest answer:  Yes.

The caveat is that for morality to have any meaning it must be objective.  This is why moral relativism is a crock.  If all moral codes are of equal value then none have any value at all, since they're subject to the shifting ideas and whims of the individual.

So why is God necessary for morality?  Because only a source of morality external to humanity can be objective.  If whatever moral code you follow comes from human thought then it may be a perfectly fine code of conduct and set of ethics, but morality?  No. 

 

[unixknight]

Apologies if this point has already been made. 

17 hours ago, EricE said:

Many LDS friends have tried to convince me that morality necessarily comes from a god. But is that the case?

Simplest answer:  Yes.

The caveat is that for morality to have any meaning it must be objective.  This is why moral relativism is a crock.  If all moral codes are of equal value then none have any value at all, since they're subject to the shifting ideas and whims of the individual.

So why is God necessary for morality?  Because only a source of morality external to humanity can be objective.  If whatever moral code you follow comes from human thought then it may be a perfectly fine code of conduct and set of ethics, but morality?  No. 

 

[bytebear]

I think you need to study Moral Relativism.   Your notion of what is moral is not universal by any means.  So you cannot put your judgements on morality in any meaningful context.

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, EricE said:

I suppose that's the difference between me and this god. If I saw a child being burned to death and I had the power to stop it, I would.

And here the crux of the purpose of this thread..."I have determined, for myself, I am more moral than this God." If you have already determined this, why the thread?

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, EricE said:

How is faith the answer to anything? I would define faith as the excuse people give for believing something for which they don't have a good reason. For instance, I can take it on faith that my bottle of mountain dew here is going to turn into pure gold. Do I have a good reason for believing that? No. But I take it on faith.

So if you can have faith in quite literally anything, is faith a reliable method for determining what is true?

Herein lies a problem, if you have a difficult time understanding the basic principle of faith, then understanding God's decisions (no matter the scenario) will be difficult if not impossible. The example you provide regarding Mountain Dew turning into gold clearly indicates this lack.

Faith indeed is reliable, even the scientific method revolves around faith, but I know atheist like to reject this, because they think they don't act in faith when they act in faith all the time. The sectarian notion of faith not having any "good reason" to believe is false.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

This is why moral relativism is a crock. 

 

Exactly. it's a crock for many reasons, frankly. One of the biggest is that it's claiming there are no moral absolutes-which is itself a moral absolute. So it's contradictory, which as any freshman philosophy major can tell you, is death to logic.   

 

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. it's a crock for many reasons, frankly. One of the biggest is that it's claiming there are no moral absolutes-which is itself a moral absolute. So it's contradictory, which as any freshman philosophy major can tell you, is death to logic.   

 

You mean it is circular reasoning and self-imploding....can't be, that would be in the words of Spock, "illogical."

[Guest MormonGator]

Most of my friends are secular and a few are atheists. We have really interesting debates. I can easily see why people don't believe in God and I do think they can personally be moral people. 

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, EricE said:

Our morality has advanced since the bronze age to now shun such things as unspeakable acts of cruelty and immorality.

"Our morality" has nothing to do with true morality.

Morality serves the purpose of advancing the human situation. but as long as anyone looks at "the human situation" as though this life alone is it, he will miss important insights into how God sees morality.

You (and @Godless) seem hung up on, e.g., the Amorites, so let's explore the situation. It goes back at least 400 years, and, as best I can tell, more than a millennium.

Noah's ark landed on Ararat, and his descendants set out to all points of the compass. But his son, Shem and his family and followers went only as far as what we know as Israel, or, better, the Land of Jerusalem. He founded a city he called "Peace", "Salem" in what would become Hebrew. (Later, the prefix "Jeru-" made it "the City of Peace".) His name (or perhaps his son's, but the chronology doesn't work well if so) or name-title was "Melchizedek", "King of Righteousness"; and, coupled with the name of his city, he was the prince or king of peace. (Obviously an anti-type of Jesus Christ). He lived 800+ years after the flood of Noah, and it was to him that Abraham paid tithes on the spoils of the war he undertook to rescue his nephew Lot from the kings of those people who would become the Amorites, Hittites, etc.

The next chapter of Genesis ends with God's making the covenant of a promised land to Abraham for his descendants. But it would not yet be, because, in the words of God:

Quote

13 And [God] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. 15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. 16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

These people, the Amorites, had been part of the original, post-Noachin, covenant, offspring of Noah and Shem. But, even in Abram's day, they were evil, and they had broken the covenant, but not so fully that they were ripe, ready to be swept off the land. It would take at least 400 years for them to reach that point, and when they did, the new covenant people, under Joshua and later, Saul, would fulfill the curse of a people who live in a promised land but fail to keep that covenant: they would be annihilated.

It was not caprice, it was not immorality that caused God, through Saul and Samuel, to destroy them. It was their having broken the covenant. The covenant would have allowed them "to prosper in the land", but there is a curse attached, too, and it was "to be swept off the land". They chose, they paid. That's what contracts are all about.

What is true of the Amorites was also true of the Hittites and all the other peoples of the area: keep the covenant, gain the blessing; break it, pay the price.

You also seem to be aghast that God would slay the Egyptians' first born. Again, we must study the history of the enslavement of the Israelites, which I assume you know. After Joseph saved the Egyptians, there arose a Pharaoh who knew him not. And, fearing an uprising (not basis for the phobia), they forced them to build cities of brick. The chronology is not clear, either it was for four generations (as in the prophecy above), or for four hundred years. Either way, the Israelites were long  in slavery, and when God commanded them to release the slaves, Pharaoh refused again and again, until God slew the children of the Egyptians. Had Pharaoh given them their freedom earlier, there would ahve been no cause for killing the first-born. So, in effect, it was their choice.

You also charge God with condoning and even commanding slavery. The only slavery you are likely familiar with is chattel slavery, but this was not the slavery the Israelites practiced under the Law of Moses. Slavery under the Law was not for life (unless the slave himself chose to remain with his master), but ended after, at most, seven years. Further, the conditions of Israelite slavery were far different from chattel slavery: the slaves were treated well, and the point of Israelite slavery was to take someone who'd broken the Law into a household where the Law was revered: it was an on-the-job training program in worship.

Your charges are spurious: God is quintessentially moral. His application of His own laws is predictable, and it serves a purpose beyond this world.

Lehi

[EricE]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

You also charge God with condoning and even commanding slavery. The only slavery you are likely familiar with is chattel slavery, but this was not the slavery the Israelites practiced under the Law of Moses. Slavery under the Law was not for life (unless the slave himself chose to remain with his master), but ended after, at most, seven years. Further, the conditions of Israelite slavery were far different from chattel slavery: the slaves were treated well, and the point of Israelite slavery was to take someone who'd broken the Law into a household where the Law was revered: it was an on-the-job training program in worship.

I stopped commenting on this thread a while ago, as the rationalizations presented confirmed my suspicions.

But I would like to point out one of your scriptural mistakes (there were several, but I'm just going to focus on the one).

You claimed that slavery under the law was not for life unless the slave chose to remain with his master. This is incorrect. The 6 year term (and released on the 7th) only applied to Hebrew slaves. Slaves who were not Hebrew were the property of their masters for life and we're passed down to their master's children when he died. Also, the term limit only applied to male slaves. 

Second, to say some slaves "chose" to remain with their masters is a vicious misrepresentation. What Exodus 21 lays out is a manner in which slave owners can essentially trick slaves into remaining a slave for life--namely by giving the male slave a wife so that when the male slave's time is up, he is given the impossible choice of remaining a slave forever, or leaving behind his wife and children. 

Lastly, this idea that slaves were treated "very well" is laughable. God specifically said you could beat your slave, as long as they were able to heal after a while. 

Lastly, your claim of the purpose of god's slavery as "on-the-job worship training" has no scriptural basis. People were sold into slavery for being in debt, because they were conquered by someone else, (if you were a woman) by your father just because he needed the money, or a myriad of other reasons. 

I didn't compare god's proposed slavery to any other kind. But we are still talking about the god of the bible saying it is moral for one human being to own another human being as property. If you want to defend and/or justify slavery, be my guest. I'll stick with saying it is immoral under any circumstance. 

[Guest MormonGator]

20 minutes ago, EricE said:

I stopped commenting on this thread a while ago, as the rationalizations presented confirmed my suspicions.

 

Eric. come on man. Don't be "that guy". 

I like several of your posts and totally see where you are coming from. I hope you stick around here, but you can't start a thread then get responses that you don't agree with and say "Okay, you confirmed what I was already thinking. Bye bye!" . It's a cliche you don't want to fall into. You are way too smart for that. 

Seriously, hope you stick around.

Edited August 11, 2016 by MormonGator

[EricE]

@MormonGator Oh dear, that isn't what I meant, sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that my question was posed for the purpose of seeing what the average LDS response was going to be as I prepare for an upcoming debate. When I said my suspicions were confirmed, what I meant was that I had suspected that the majority of responses would be rationalizations for why murder/slavery etc. is actually moral, and how the responses to some of my rebuttals would go. It was always possible that the responses would have gone down the line of I was misinterpreting the story in the scripture, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This was my first time participating in these forums, and I must say I was impressed with the respectful tone of many of the responders (I can't say all, but many ). I'll definitely be back for more discussions!

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, EricE said:

@MormonGator Oh dear, that isn't what I meant, sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that my question was posed for the purpose of seeing what the average LDS response was going to be as I prepare for an upcoming debate. When I said my suspicions were confirmed, what I meant was that I had suspected that the majority of responses would be rationalizations for why murder/slavery etc. is actually moral, and how the responses to some of my rebuttals would go. It was always possible that the responses would have gone down the line of I was misinterpreting the story in the scripture, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

This was my first time participating in these forums, and I must say I was impressed with the respectful tone of many of the responders (I can't say all, but many ). I'll definitely be back for more discussions!

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding too. I seriously hope you stay here my friend. 

[EricE]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding too. I seriously hope you stay here my friend. 

Thanks!

[estradling75]

So are you going to answer the question I posed to you... Or should we really not expect you to want to discuss things when you post?

[zil]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Faith indeed is reliable, even the scientific method revolves around faith, but I know atheist like to reject this, because they think they don't act in faith when they act in faith all the time. The sectarian notion of faith not having any "good reason" to believe is false.

My dad once pointed out that the things he always heard atheists rejecting were the erroneous or incomplete teachings of other Christian denominations, and that had they learned the truth before hardening their hearts, things might be very different.  From the context in which I hear pretty much everyone other than Mormons use the word "faith", they think it means either "religion" or "weak belief in something which cannot be tested".  This is unfortunate as everyone who acts in any way does so by faith, they just don't know it.

19 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So are you going to answer the question I posed to you... Or should we really not expect you to want to discuss things when you post?

I think we've served our purpose.

Meanwhile, nice avatar - not nearly so grumpy or girly.

[EricE]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So are you going to answer the question I posed to you... Or should we really not expect you to want to discuss things when you post?

Are you talking to me? A lot of responses came in at once and I tried to get to most of them. Sorry if I missed something, but I don't think that warrants the passive-aggressiveness. 

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, EricE said:

Are you talking to me? A lot of responses came in at once and I tried to get to most of them. Sorry if I missed something, but I don't think that warrants the passive-aggressiveness. 

Yes it was to you...  You started a discussion  you got a lot of people talking and discussing and sure with a lot of people talking its easy to loose track a few... thats not a problem... But then you say... "Hey Thanks for letting me use you... I never had any intention of really having a discussion.. but I will be sure to come back when I need to use you again."  

So while you might label my response as passive aggressive... I label it calling a spade a spade.  And it is good to know what to expect from you in the future.

 

[EricE]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So while you might label my response as passive aggressive... I label it calling a spade a spade.  And it is good to know what to expect from you in the future.

 

I believe that what I said was that in preparing for a debate, I wanted to see what various LDS thinkers thought about a certain topic. If that's offensive, I apologize. 

However, I wouldn't mistake the reason for me starting the thread as not wanting a conversation. One of my values is being willing to change my mind if rational and demonstrable evidence can be shown. It's one of the best thing about relying on the scientific method, recognizing that absolute certainty can't exist. I'm an atheist for no other reason than because I have not been convinced there is sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable belief in the existence of a god. 

So while I begin (or join) conversations for various reasons, I take each very seriously and am always open to new ideas. 

I will add, though, that this particular thread has grown a tad frustrating as various responders have sought to justify murder, slavery, and other things I find immoral, by simply claiming it's different when a god does it. That is the definition of the special pleading fallacy and leaves us in a situation where we should be following a god who says 'do as I say, not as I do."

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, EricE said:

I will add, though, that this particular thread has grown a tad frustrating as various responders have sought to justify murder, slavery, and other things I find immoral, by simply claiming it's different when a god does it. That is the definition of the special pleading fallacy and leaves us in a situation where we should be following a god who says 'do as I say, not as I do."

Then I would very much like to see you answer the question I posed ... here it is again.

 

Based on your claim that as God you would not let a child burn to death...

 

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Ok you are God... you have a choice... you see a child being burned to death...  You know that if you do nothing that the child will suffer temporally but due to the experience, will in the life to come, use that experience to become someone who has maximum joy and happiness not only to themselves but also to others...  Or you can stop it and protect the child.  And in so doing they don't gain that experience and never become someone that has maximum joy and happiness.

What is the moral choice for you, as God, to make?

 

With that knowledge what is your answer

[Anddenex]

25 minutes ago, EricE said:

 "recognizing that absolute certainty can't exist."

I will add, though, that this particular thread has grown a tad frustrating as various responders have sought to justify murder, slavery, and other things I find immoral, by simply claiming it's different when a god does it. That is the definition of the special pleading fallacy and leaves us in a situation where we should be following a god who says 'do as I say, not as I do."

Absolute certainty cannot exist, while making an absolute statement? Always intriguing how a person can make an absolute statement while stating it can't exist. You have declared you have an absolute certainty that absolute certainty can not exist...just a tad bit of irony possibly.

The last paragraph, I was wondering when this standard feign of frustration would come out. This isn't the first thread you have entered into with LDS. This isn't going to be the last, as you seek to garner evidence for pre-conceived ideas, and you will probably make a similar feign, "Oh my, I am a tad frustrated......" What you actually witnessed is individuals specifying we don't know, one day we will know, and one day you will know with absolute certainty and will claim with absolute certainty that God is just. If you want to believe as you believe, feel free to, but please don't feign frustration when people have been providing you with answers you just don't want to accept, and that is OK, you don't have to accept -- no one on this thread believed you would. They simply answered your question.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Anddenex