Pretty much like it was with Sodom and Gomorrah I would imagine. But I'm being facetious.

Although that does beg the question, why did he do it then and not now? Did he change his mind???

But all that aside, I'd like to address thisThe implication seems to be that morality is relative to one's knowledge, intellect, patience and love. So the question still remains: from your viewpoint, are we bound by the exact same moral standards as God or not?

That's an interesting observation Sky. We'd already have a "moving target" if this is the case.

This also brings up extremely important questions. One that specifically comes to mind is same-gender love.

Surely we can be expected to believe that people who are gay fully understand that what they are doing is 'wrong' and they actually feel guilty and bad about it, yet they choose to do it anyway?

That seems utterly crazy to me.

Why would anyone chose to do something that they innately feel is wrong and they are 'uncomfortable' with it?

Clearly there's something wrong with that picture. If same-gender couples can be perfecly happy living with each other and feel good about themselves and life in general, then obviously they can't be having bad feelings of conscience about this.

So that flies in the very face of the whole concept right there.

The idea that some 'devil made them do it' doesn't fly either. If a devil is making them do it, then clearly they aren't responsible for their actions.

In fact, the whole idea of a devil going around trying to corrupt people is an insane idea right there. That would imply that men are not capable of corrupting themsleves and they need to be corrupted by a third party.

In fact, we can take this clear back to Adam and Eve. If we're going to stick with the Judeo-Christian philosophy. And after all, if we're going to demand that a "God" is required for absolute morality then we truly have no choice but to discuss religious doctrine because that would then be the only source of morality.

So, with that in mind, if we go back to the Garden of Eden, we see Adam trying to be very obedient to God, whilst Eve is corrupted by Satan. Well, right off the bat this has always bothered me. If mankind wasn't capable of corrupting himself, then what was up with sending this third party in to corrupt man? That seems to be an dirty trick played on mankind right there.

Another question I have from this very same religion would be to ask why God didn't create Mary as a wife for Adam?

After all, if God is all-knowing and all that, then what's up with creating a bimbo like Eve for Adam? We never had a chance. Mary (the mother of Jesus) was supposedly a sinless mortal woman, then why didn't God create Mary as a wife for Adam and their wouldn't have ever been any 'fall from grace'.

The whole story seems to hing on humanity's dependency on trusting God to give Adam a decent mate and God failed us. Should we be blamed for God's poor choice of a wife for Adam?

And then of course, if we bring modern knowledge into the picture the whole thing falls apart anyway, because we now know that death, disease and a dog-eat-dog world existed long before mankind came onto the scene, so the whole idea that mankind was the cause of all that flies out the window anyway and the whole mythology becomes as empty and meaningless as Greek mythology. It's clearly been exposed to be false. The authors were caught in a boldface lie.

And all of this seemingly "anti-biblical" stuff isn't meant to put down a religion. On the contrary, it's serious questions. If we're going to turn to a religion as the "word of God" shouldn't we have some responsibility to question it's validity?

After all, if it's discovered to be a book of lies (which is certainly appears to be from my point of view) then it's far more likely to have been created by a demon than a God. Or at least by lying mortals. Why would our creator lie to us?

It would seem to me that any truly just creator would expect us to question it very rigously. I've done precisely that and I've concluded that it can't possibly be the word of any trustworthy all-wise God.

So if I'm going to continue to search for a divine creator I had better look elsewhere. The Mediterranean mythologies are clearly all false as far as I can see.

Finally, just on a personal note, I have no need to seek religion for moral values. I'm quite happy with the moral values I already have and I'm confident that any truly divine being would also be quite happy with my moral values.

So for me, religion isn't even about moral values at all. But that's just a personal aside.

Ah, but isn't it interesting how 'God's Chosen' are always doing the killing while ending up with the land, slaves and virgins?

Isn't it more likely that those who claim to speak for an Omnipotent One are the same ones about which philosophers have often asked "If Power corrupts, doesn't absolute Power corrupt absolutely?"

I rather like the lyrics from that old song from the movie "Billy Jack":

"Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the Judgement Day.
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away."

-Kerry O.

Truly. The religion just reflects the attitudes of the people who invented it. Nothing more.

Me too. It seems more likely that religious Fundamentalist have this bizarre type of scotoma brought about by their boundless, obsessive need to defend dogma at every turn. They can't possibly understand that, as one author put it in a sci-fi novel, "...their acts of convenience are the tragedies of their victims."

-Kerry O.

No.

Nice to see yas again, Abra.

I know it seems silly, but I was just recounting to a friend the other day how seeing Euler's Identity for the very first time was something of a religious experience.

I guess I prefer Mystery any day to dominance games.

-Kerry O.

I just recently watched that movie. Wow, was it bad! To see Billy Jack react so violently when three kids had flour poured on their faces and then laugh about a young girl being forced to strip at knife point...whoa. The girl would have been raped if he hadn't showed up when he did, but he seemed to think the whole thing was funny and he even attempted to crack a couple jokes. He then told the young girl that he was "probably" going to look at her naked while she gathered her clothes to cover herself. <shudder>

God's moral law has always included punishments, it's no moving target. It's wrong to commit murder, if you do, you can go to prison or be executed. It's the result of your actions. If there were no punishments for moral infractions, that would be anarchy. Laws were created to protect the citizens from each other and their government.

just one's point of view no matter what you believe

No thats not what i said spider read it again. Society has nothing to do with it. I am looking for a weaknes in my theory about how RIGHT AND WRONG IS PRIMAL AND INSTINCTUAL. JUST LIKE A BABY NATURLY CRIES WHEN ITS HUNGRY, AND A MOTHER WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO PROTECT HER CHILD. ITS WRONG TO DO ANYTHING THAT WILL HURT OR HINDER THE HEALTH, SURVIVAL OR PROSPARITY OF THE HUMAN RACE. its wired into our brain. im trying to figure out if thats correct or if i can be improved.
having an openmind and trying to see every aspect of any situation is key here. please dont argue with me, arguing is pointless and gets nothing done(especialy when it has nothing to do with what i said). i would like any input to help me prepare for a class on this subject. so if you have any that is clear, concise and relivant to this theory of mine feel free.
other wise keep it to your self please.
justice is the protection and preservation of whats in the best intrest of the human race
what do you guys think about that statment (focus on that statment

Whose measuring rod shal we use in determining what constitutes exactly what is best for mankind?

There are no absolute moral standards, jason.

I thought you were going towards morals being the creation of societies, but you are saying it's source is...? Evolution?

If it's evolution, then I have to repeat my argument. If intercourse caused women intense pain and they refused to participate, would it be right for men to rape the women? The survival of the species is in the balance...

Basically, it comes down to this: Your argument isn't that there is an underlying morality that dictates what is right and wrong, you believe that morality is based on nature, then there is no absolute right and wrong. There is subjective morality, which is just a trick of nature to perpetuate the species.

If rape is always wrong, even when it is the only way to perpetuate the species, then morality is objective and absolute and therefore not the result of evolution or any other naturalistic forces.

but its not the only way tpo perpetuate the spcecies...is it
otherwise it would be very difficult. i think you just like to argue spider. tell you what your right. you win!

my only hope for you is that you win as many battels in flesh as you have in your imagination, perhaps than you will aquire the humility of a man.
i have what i need

It appears that you didn't mean the above statement. I took it as meaning that you wanted your idea challenged, which I did. I challenged it based on mainstream philosophical beliefs on the existence of right and wrong. My arguments showed that your theory was fallacious, which you would have appreciated if you were honestly looking for a rebuttal as your OP suggested. Instead of taking an honest look at your beliefs about morality, you attacked me and impugned my character. You really should think about that and wonder why you would ask for rebuttals and then insult the one person who offers them. Perhaps you weren't entirely honest when you requested rebuttals and were instead seeking praise?

you have a good point, but as i said before arguing and disscusing are two entirerly different things. arguing, spider, is when an individual is trying to convince a person he is right.(as you are. the structure and tone you use lead me to believe you are used to being right) disscusing is an open line of communication between people, its sharing ideas and finding solutions to problems. this is difficult for alot of people, i understand. espesialy an individual like you who is used to always being right. but the reward for opening your mind are endless.
now, if you can give me relivent arguement about my thesis, id be glad to here it.

you include God alot in your arguments. What does the lord say about humility?

ill tell you what socretes says
He said he was the most wise because he knew that he didnt know anything.
you brought up some good points, but your arrogant attitude turns people off. dont force your oppinon on people spider, the moment you do, weather or not you have a valid point is irrelivant.

so..lets have a disscusion hugh?
oh and try not hide behind your vocabulary so much, it also turs people off

well.. good point. im always telling my self there are no absolutes.
but if i had to i would say the same rod that constitues whats best for the rest of the animal kingdom. survival and the will to adapt and overcome.
mmmm tahnk you, ill have to think on that one ( =

When you debate a topic, you always do so from the position that you are correct. Also, because I believe what I am saying, I present it as if I am correct. So do most of the other posters here. It's fine, I'll probably just leave the forums again. It's not worth the drama. I don't want the admins or mods to think I'm here to cause trouble.

mmmm good point, i never thought of it that way. of course i never thought of it as a debate either.
well i hope dont leave on account of me, that wasnt my intention. i didnt realize we were having a debate. isnt it amazing how easily miss communication can... well anyways
how about some advice? you sound very inteligent and well rounded,
how do you think i can improve my argument?

Google Hume's guillotine and save yourself the trouble of attempting to objectify the product of the personal sense of ought.