Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Religious Authority or just Man's law?

SPC

Sure Fletch there are black men and white women who happily subordinate their world view to the inheritance of the Christian regime.
And those who do not are the ruin of that civilisation, due to their secular tolerance for immorality – end of enforcement of godly morality in law.
One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.

Fletch

One problem, the sermon on the mount was an appeal to end religious authority in law, and let faith guide the personal behaviour/ethical standard.
I don’t think so. If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to? The law is already faith-based in a way (the law against murder is based on the sixth commandment). I once read an ex-atheist Christian challenging some people on an atheist forum, and an atheist questioned why murder should be wrong. The Christian replied that there really isn’t a reason, apart from God saying that it is wrong.
Here is the interesting exchange (Christian ex-atheist answers in bold) –
Can I ask a really silly question?
You state that divine authority is needed in order to provide a logical basis for morality. That’s fine, many other people have made this claim, too.
So, why do we need morals?
We don’t.
I’m completely serious here. For example, can you provide a single reason why murder is wrong other than “God said so”?
No, I can’t.
The reason I ask is that your statement seems to imply that you consider a logical moral value system to be a good thing – but you also seem to think that the definition of “good” relies completely and solely on the existance of God. This leaves me wondering what actually is your logical and rational basis for deciding that a logical moral system would be a good thing.
I never make the claim that a logical moral value system is a good thing. I simply state that without divine authority, we have no logical basis for the promotion of any value system, no matter what we think of that system. I’m not so much concerned with the definition of ‘good’ as I am with an objective standard. The standard of morality cannot have an objective reality without divine authority.
As an example, many people consider “thou shalt not kill” to be a good commandment, but are completely unable to rationalise why they think that. Can you answer this question? “God said so” may be a valid reason why you should obey – at least assuming God is real – but is there any other reason at all why this should considered to be a good commandment?
There is no other reason why this should be considered to be a good commandment. None. Zilch. Try to logical prove that killing is morally wrong. You will fail. Other than the reality of a god who declares killing to be morally wrong, there is no logically compelling reason for us to believe it is wrong.
Oddly, if you do answer this question, you’ll have to do so by justifying a moral value without reference to God, which you’ve claimed you can’t do. (Before you get offended, I actually suspect you can answer this question – which is pretty much my point. If you have to, prove me wrong by saying you still don’t know why murder is wrong, but I do hope you’re a better person than that.)
Oh my! No, you have certainly mistaken me for someone else. I really have no other reason to logically believe that murder is wrong. I could be honest and say that it emotionally upsets me, but I always choose reason over my emotions. If our lives have no inherent purpose or value, we are only kidding ourselves when we establish the facade of morality.
Go ahead. Logically prove to me that murder is wrong..
Why (assuming you do) do you now believe people are different to termites? is there any reason other than “the Bible says so” or “God says so” ?
If we are designed and loved by a god, we have inherent purpose and value as opposed to self-assigned, imaginary purpose and value.

Griff

That is total crap .
We dont murder because we dont want to be murdered .
The golden rule and the basis for morality.
do unto others as you have them do unto you.
No that rule is not Christendoms possession it is found in many different cultures .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
[except there is one major religion that does not follow  the "golden rule"]

SPC

“If we each have our own personal faith and ethical standards and yours differs from mine then whose should we appeal to?”
No one, simply delineate personal morality from law – personal morality where there is consent, law where there is no consent. Where there is no consent then there is law.
Placing law into areas where there is consent is interference, imposed morality one on another.
What motivates personal morality, whether Godfaith code or mutual respect citizenship (in our dominion) is besides the point or should be.

Fletch

SPC, yes but what about if you run across a culture where killing is very much acceptable and their law allows it. Your personal morality accounts for nothing in that case. What is law, then, if not the legislation of moral opinions? Every time a law is made, it becomes an imposition of one group’s opinion upon another’s.
When we throw a person in jail because he has robbed a house, he is being imprisoned because of another man’s opinion that stealing is wrong. Once again, the opinion in question concerns a subjective reality and is, therefore, purely subjective and a matter of preference. Our entire justice system becomes illusory. In order for our justice system to have credibility, it has to be based on an authority that exceeds the mere opinion of men. But with a God who establishes morality as an objective reality, we are no longer dealing with the opinions of man’s preference, but the opinions of men concerning God’s preference.


SPC

No one consents to being murdered or stolen from.
Your refusal to acknowledge the role of consent in modern state law making, is simply because of a preference to (and habit of apology for this) impose God morality in law, in that you apologise for those Jews and those Moslems who (would) do the same.

No comments: