“Good” and moral is whatever that says is good! In one society it might be eating one’s enemies, in another it may be loving one’s enemies. "Good" could be killing off..the weak, the infirm..the disabled...???
2007-09-28 03:23:58 · 14 answers · asked by Eartha Q 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Moiraes Fate...maybe...??
have you see apocolypto?
2007-09-28 03:34:28 · update #1
That's my point mountainman..there are none..without God
2007-09-28 03:35:16 · update #2
Yes Matt J...Im asking what you think
2007-09-28 03:36:04 · update #3
Woah!! Scary Tom!!
2007-09-28 09:00:38 · update #4
Yes!! Thanks Bruce..people are getting what Im trying to say!!
2007-09-28 09:01:25 · update #5
This is a crucial issue, Eartha.
Human rights can only be objective realities and "unalienable" if there is an authority greater than any man who establishes these rights and sustains them for every person in every country.
Accordingly, Nazis who tortured Jews, Gypsies, and others they considered non-Aryans and subhuman were following the law in Nazi Germany, and yet they were tried and in some cases executed for crimes against a higher law established by God.
Without an objective moral order, with natural rights, and with right and wrong, established by God, we are left with the opinions of individuals. In a world were people are the highest authority, right and wrong are mere opinions about what we like and dislike.
It is no accident that those who don't believe in God nearly always reject God's moral laws, whenever push comes to shove. Hence, atheists are the first to claim the freedom to use drugs, abort children, practice promiscuous sex, euthanize the helpless, and redefine marriage to mean "any relationship anyone wants to call marriage for any reason."
Cheers,
Bruce
2007-09-28 07:56:51 · answer #1 · answered by Bruce 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is presently in America and political process working hard to achieve just that, a world without God and without moral absolutes. This process gives only lip service to God while redefining morality as "social conscience". One of my neighbors who is of this same persuasion and a regular in his "Church," recently told me that he believed it was up to each person to find their own God. He further stated that God, the Creator of all things, was also the Creator of sin. That's as far as I allowed him to get! The point being that this none sense is pervasive. We're approaching the point where the sin won't be in the act, but in the reaction to the act. Homosexuality comes to mind, but there are many more.
2007-09-28 15:53:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
... Yes. But have you noticed that most human beings have come to a consensus that murder, rape, and theft are bad things?
Why is it that Christians have such a hard time understanding that we all have to live in this world together, that we're social animals, and that its alot easier to live in a world where we aren't hurting each other all the time?
Thats not religion, its common sense. You don't need a god for morals to exist. All you need is a social society.
2007-09-28 10:32:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are speaking of moral relativism, which is independent of ethics.
During the dark ages, it was morally acceptable to burn a witch to death (as well as sanctioned by the church, along with other things, like torture as an acceptable method of conversion to Christianity).
Today that would be considered abhorrent. Therefore, God is independent of morals.
Ethics tells us that bringnig harm to another human being is wrong. This has never changed.
2007-09-28 10:28:52 · answer #4 · answered by 006 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even God's morality appears to have evolved over time with cultures if you read the Bible. OT God and NT God have rather different approaches. In the OT punishment for children could be stoning to death. Raping a virgin could mean paying the father 50 coins. Murdering ones adversaries children was also endorsed by God who also told his followers if they needed women to hide in the bushes and catch them as they went by. If a woman wasn't a virgin on her wedding night her husband could have her stoned. Its a good thing morality has evolved rather than remained absolute in my eyes.
2007-09-28 10:36:58 · answer #5 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This IS a world without god,regardless of what people "want"."Want doesn't,and never will,dictate reality.It isn't so necessary in our society today,but "good"can mean killing off the infirm.In the Middle ages for example,poverty was harsh,and sometimes the choice is someone dies or everyone starves.Think of "Hansel and Gretyl"A fairy tale that shows the stark reality of the day.Dropping some in the woods so all wouldn't starve.Good and bad are subjective,there are no moral absolutes
2007-09-28 10:31:15 · answer #6 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, it would still be whatever values can hold a society together and allow it to function. Just like now. Morality is socially developed, not a mandate from God.
2007-09-28 10:27:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
....And everyone runs around imposing their morality upon others. Even saying everyone has the right to life, liberty, the pusuit of happiness, and the protection of personal property would impose on the views of the majority.
I love this topic. I think you would greatly enjoy reading about Utilitarianism.
2007-09-28 10:38:30 · answer #8 · answered by Stoic fool 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, Christianity is a society, and you expect people to abide by its definition of good, not one based on humanity and common sense.
Are you saying we should abandon societies based on what was said in a book for what benefits all? I agree.
2007-09-28 10:27:11 · answer #9 · answered by LabGrrl 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Morality is generally a consensus. Whether it is founded on religion or culture makes no odds.
2007-09-28 10:26:42 · answer #10 · answered by Twilight 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋