Are "morals" more important than god

lostexpectation

thought this was worth a new thread cos I see the Is there a god debate as pointless, do others? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50685233&postcount=38

Is a moral code more important than God to those that believe.





I (as athiest) prefer to read morals as trying to be good, not any particular code...

Beruthiel

you are nothing without a moral code
no matter who you are or what you are

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

Is a moral code more important than God to those that believe.

Believe in a god you mean?

The only reason (monotheistic) gods exist is to provide a moral code for believers. The purpose of their "showing" themselves to humanity is to instruct us on how to live our lives.

Therefore for a believer your question is misleading. God represents their moral code in such a way as there is no distinction between the two.

The question is easier to answer from the POV of a non-believer. Obviously if god does not exist /he/she/it has no importance. But in the absence of god, your own moral code become especially important as it is what dictates how you treat your fellow inhabitants.

Morals aren't something you believe in, like a god. They are something you practice.

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

Is a moral code more important than God to those that believe.

Wouldn't this be better in the Christianity forum, since most people here don't believe in God in the first place, so God has no importantance at all in their lives?

lostexpectation wrote:

I (as athiest) prefer to read morals as trying to be good, not any particular code...

I believe that it is important for society to establish sets of moral codes in a uniform and consistent manner. Things like the UN Human Rights charter.

The problem leaving morality simply up to an individual is that an individual can be heavily influenced by emotions.

For example right now I believe that it is wrong to execute anyone for any crime, including murder. I have logical and moral reasons for this, that I won't get into here, but lets just say it isn't an idea I just thought up one day.

But if my family were killed in a home invasion by a drug addict I would probably want him dead, and my logical morality would probably go out the window in a fit of rage and anger. But if it is wrong to execute someone, it is wrong to execute someone even if I am involved.

Another example would be something like 9/11. A lot of human rights of Americans other non-Americans have been eroded since 9/11 in an effort to "protect" people. But if something was morally unjustified (imprisionment without trail) before 9/11 it is morally unjustifed after 9/11

lostexpectation

The Atheist wrote:

Believe in a god you mean?

The only reason (monotheistic) gods exist is to provide a moral code for believers. The purpose of their "showing" themselves to humanity is to instruct us on how to live our lives.

God represents their moral code in such a way as there is no distinction between the two.

-- I can't remember having seen that point come up much at all in all the Is there a God debates?

The Atheist wrote:

The question is easier to answer from the POV of a non-believer. Obviously if god does not exist /he/she/it has no importance. But in the absence of god, your own moral code become especially important as it is what dictates how you treat your fellow inhabitants.

Morals aren't something you believe in, like a god. They are something you practice.

Can you then say that debates about God's existence are really about the existence of a prescribed moral code?

Yossie

The believer could always look at it from the POV of "if in Abraham's shoes" what would they do when god asks them to lop their son's head off - follow their own moral code (hopefully that holds that murder is wrong) or do as god commands.

Dades

lostexpectation wrote:

-- I can't remember having seen that point come up much at all in all the Is there a God debates?

Why would it? The issue of morality has no relevance in a debate as to the existence of God. We know it is possible to have morals without God. If we debate the existence of an apple inside a sealed box, is it relevant to the process whether or not the apple is ripe? :v:

lostexpectation wrote:

Can you then say that debates about God's existence are really about the existence of a prescribed moral code?

No they are about the existence of a deity.

However if god "A" was proven to exist (unlikely, to say the least) I would imagine that god A's moral code is then the one that should be adhered to.

I agree with wicknight about the shifting of morals due to circumstances. It's easy to forgive when you haven't been wronged.

lostexpectation

The Atheist wrote:

Why would it? The issue of morality has no relevance in a debate as to the existence of God. We know it is possible to have morals without God. If we debate the existence of an apple inside a sealed box, is it relevant to the process whether or not the apple is ripe? :v:

No they are about the existence of a deity.

but as you described earlier that the only purpose of god was as an exampe of moral code, ie the purpose, the weight is on the moral code described not the figure.

And from the token mad mullah on dawkins to Bertie Ahern alot of religious people suggest that the worst thing about athiest is their lack of morals...

The Atheist wrote:

God represents their moral code in such a way as there is no distinction between the two.

*So thinking out loud*

God is Good, God is an example to follow, what is an atheist example. (any athiest)




---

The Atheist wrote:

I agree with wicknight about the shifting of morals due to circumstances. It's easy to forgive when you haven't been wronged.

Just morals don't shift your position to them does. (If just morals is the right phrase)

coffee_cake

what is an atheist example. (any athiest)

People and ideals they perceive to be good, I would imagine

legspin

The Atheist wrote:

Why would it? The issue of morality has no relevance in a debate as to the existence of God. We know it is possible to have morals without God. If we debate the existence of an apple inside a sealed box, is it relevant to the process whether or not the apple is ripe? :v:

And can it possibly both Mr Schrodinger?:p

Asiaprod

Beruthiel wrote:

you are nothing without a moral code
no matter who you are or what you are

I agree. ones own moral code is what really counts

Cronus333

Without a moral code god is nothing. People wouldnt worship a god whose sol characteristic is amorality, and thus god couldnt exist exept in his current form or as somehing akin to the Greek P.antheon

muesli_offire

People wouldnt worship a god whose sol characteristic is amorality

People will worship just about anything. Didn't 'Beneath the Planet of the Apes' already prove this? And what about those who see an ethical relationshp with God as unhampered by talk of a 'moral code'?

Excelsior

As a monotheist I find it interesting that so many of you have successfully seen through my belief system. Most expert in this area is The Atheist who assures us that the only reason montheistic gods are worshipped is to provide a moral code.

However, as a bit of a Bible study enthusiast, it is interesting to me that the major text of monotheists around the world is without moral code writing except for 2 chapters in Matthew, 1 chapter in Luke, the code of priestly guidelines in Leviticus and the decalogue repeated in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

The rest of it is narrative, poetry, allegory, wisdom, pastoral letters and the unique apocolyptic. So why is there all the padding when only about 4% of the Bible is morality?

Also, if anyone feels like debating with the actual components of a theistic belief instead of just stating things ( ), is the concept of Grace, which is the core of Christianity, not anti-ethical to the idea of moral codes?

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

However, as a bit of a Bible study enthusiast, it is interesting to me that the major text of monotheists around the world is without moral code writing except for 2 chapters in Matthew, 1 chapter in Luke, the code of priestly guidelines in Leviticus and the decalogue repeated in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

The Bible is without moral codes except the bits specifically dealing with moral codes ....

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

As a monotheist I find it interesting that so many of you have successfully seen through my belief system. Most expert in this area is The Atheist who assures us that the only reason montheistic gods are worshipped is to provide a moral code.

Ha! Busted by the Christianity mod!

You have pointed out something that I should have noted - that is speaking in definitives. My earlier comments should have been garnished with an "IMO" or such like. I usually reproach other people about that.

What I meant to say I guess is that (IMO) montheistic gods exist to provide a moral code. People of course worship for their own reasons.

I am guilty no doubt of horrific simplification but did (your) God not first appear to mankind to reveal to them the folly of their ways? Was Jesus not sent teach us how we could be born again? No doubt there is much 'history' in the bible too, but I don't believe that is the reason for its existence. When you sit through a gospel or sermon in mass do they give you an account how many head of cattle Jeramiah of Phoenica had, or do you get a parable with an moral to the story?

Take away the moral code and it is difficult to see what relevance the bible has anything.

Funsterdelux

HA sure if we are all non believers than naturally god wont be an answer

Rev Hellfire

Funsterdelux wrote:

HA sure if we are all non believers than naturally god wont be an answer

he/she/it may just ignore you.

Excelsior

The Atheist wrote:

Ha! Busted by the Christianity mod!

He has his moments. (IMHO)

The Atheist wrote:

I am guilty no doubt of horrific simplification but did (your) God not first appear to mankind to reveal to them the folly of their ways?

I am guilty, no doubt, of relying on a psychological crutch but God, who is God, ( ) first appeared to Abram to give him a son and a new name.

The Atheist wrote:

Was Jesus not sent teach us how we could be born again?

Not to sound like a fundie, but one of the more reliable historical documents on Jesus says that he was came "so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again."

That design brief laid out in the 4th Gospel is not a moral project, except in the broadest terms possible. The trajectory of the Biblical plot, if I can be that flippant without the real fundies biting my head off, is not that God would show us a way to make good (which would indeed be a moral project) but instead to make things good and bring us in (almost regardless of our personal moral history). This is what I mean when I say that the Christian concept of Grace stands totally oppossed to this common reading of God as the justifier of socially accepted moral norms.

He isn't a very good imaginary tool if he wants us to reject "morality".

The Atheist wrote:

No doubt there is much 'history' in the bible too, but I don't believe that is the reason for its existence.

If I was a Jewish scholar instead of a wannabe Christian one, I might take up that bone with you. The traditioning process that certainly was part of the formation of Canon and that in part inspires your reading of the history of God was certainly a vital message of the Bible. The "history", including the bits that aren't modern history, are a huge strand of the meaning.

The Atheist wrote:

When you sit through a gospel or sermon in mass do they give you an account how many head of cattle Jeramiah of Phoenica had, or do you get a parable with an moral to the story?

I get neither. Partly that is because it is rare that you would find me at a mass. But a sermon is traditionally an applied expounding of the passage in its context relative to the chapter, the book and then the whole scope of Scripture. As someone who has to write a few sermons every year, I wish I could stand up and deliver a parable but damn, they are difficult things to compose.

The Atheist wrote:

Take away the moral code and it is difficult to see what relevance the bible has anything.

And that is where your argument truly collapses. Either you have never had the Bible explained to you or you have never read it yourself. The Bible tells the story of a Creator God who desperately wants to restore a relationship with us that we broke and that we can't fix. The Law parts of it are there, (and here I standing firmly in the line of Luther right back to Augustine, by which I mean I am speaking for Christianity down through the ages and not just some 20-something's interpretation) as road-signs towards the Grace.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

And that is where your argument truly collapses. Either you have never had the Bible explained to you or you have never read it yourself. The Bible tells the story of a Creator God who desperately wants to restore a relationship with us that we broke and that we can't fix. The Law parts of it are there, (and here I standing firmly in the line of Luther right back to Augustine, by which I mean I am speaking for Christianity down through the ages and not just some 20-something's interpretation) as road-signs towards the Grace.

Isn't that Atheist's point, the entire Bible is basically an instruction from God on how to hollow his laws and live life to his moral code, told through direct instructions but also through morality stories.

If you remove that you just have a bunch of stories about people who have been dead for over 2000 years

Excelsior

God doesn't want us to "follow his law" in the sense that following his law is impossible. So often in the New Testament that is explicitly written that I can't understand how common it is that Christianity is cast in the light of "Obey God and he'll be happy".

The Law says that if we were as good and as pure as God, we would be able to stand alongside God. The whole purpose of the Bible is to show that we cannot stand alongside God because we are not as good and as pure as Him.

BUT, he wants to hang out with us forever and so he finds a way. He finds the way. We don't. All we do is respond to his action. The Bible has to either miss its conclusion and end with the last word of Malachi or be warped entirely to fit into this picture of some moral lessons strung together with childrens stories.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

Not to sound like a fundie, but one of the more reliable historical documents on Jesus says that he was came "so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again."

Hmm. God may have sent a ship to pick up survivors, but he didn't just say "everyone aboard!". Instead he made certain guidelines about who was going to be able to get aboard. Those that didn't follow those guidelines, would be left to sharks.

Excelsior wrote:

BUT, he wants to hang out with us forever and so he finds a way. He finds the way. We don't. All we do is respond to his action.

What way is this, that isn't a set of guidelines?

pH

Excelsior wrote:

God doesn't want us to "follow his law" in the sense that following his law is impossible. So often in the New Testament that is explicitly written that I can't understand how common it is that Christianity is cast in the light of "Obey God and he'll be happy".

The Law says that if we were as good and as pure as God, we would be able to stand alongside God. The whole purpose of the Bible is to show that we cannot stand alongside God because we are not as good and as pure as Him.

BUT, he wants to hang out with us forever and so he finds a way. He finds the way. We don't. All we do is respond to his action. The Bible has to either miss its conclusion and end with the last word of Malachi or be warped entirely to fit into this picture of some moral lessons strung together with childrens stories.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what all that meant.

It always strikes me that anyone who has thought about the concept of God or Christianity seriously for a while (theologians and philosophers say), argue from a radically different position and set of beliefs than an ordinary church going Christian.

To me it seems to be akin to any cult following of nerdiness, like trekies debating fictional plots, contradictions, justifications etc. Using a large fictional base of writings to take pointless intellectual positions and defend them based on their own interpretations and clever arguments. Why? - for obvious human reasons, to find relevence and justification for their own beliefs, and also to look big and clever.

Excelsior

pH wrote:

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what all that meant.

I am the one in that case who should be apologising.

pH wrote:

It always strikes me that anyone who has thought aout the concept of God or Christianity seriously for a while (theologians and philosophers say), argue from a radically different position and set of beliefs than an ordinary church going Christian.

I think that this is a classic "in my (limited) experience, therefore" argument. Even the category "ordinary church going Christian" is deeply deficient, no less so because it is utilised so often. You can't find a reference to "going to church" in the New Testament- these fundamental misconceptions might be why Christianity explained by someone who has thought about it are so confusing to you. (My incoherent writing obviously plays a large role too!)

pH wrote:

To me it seems to be akin to any cult following of nerdiness, like trekies debating fictional plots, contradictions, justifications etc. Using a large fictional base of writings to take pointless intellectual positions and defend them based on their own interpretations and clever arguments. Why? - for obvious human reasons, to find relevence and justification for their own beliefs, and also to look big and clever.

Wow. That is permissable? That is an astoundingly arrogant paragraph: "cult following of nerdiness", comparison to Trekkies, "debating fictional plots", "large fictional base of writings", "to take pointless intellectual positions", "to look big and clever".

The Atheist wrote:

Hmm. God may have sent a ship to pick up survivors, but he didn't just say "everyone aboard!". Instead he made certain guidelines about who was going to be able to get aboard. Those that didn't follow those guidelines, would be left to sharks.

I have not actually formulated some convoluted argument but have used the base texts as my foundation. These base texts are clear that Jesus does say "everyone aboard!" The guideline for coming aboard is just that- step on board. When God asks who is in, put your hand up to be counted in. If you define Grace as a moral code then you have to deal with the difficulties that poses for your category moral code. Suddenly, moral code means anything.

Grace is almost anti-moral because it says your deeds have no bearing on your end result. It is a shocking and almost repulsive idea that definitely doesn't fit inside your perspective on monotheism. And yet it is the root of all Christianity.

The Atheist wrote:

What way is this, that isn't a set of guidelines?

The way is the Cross and the Resurrection. The response is acceptance of hand offered to us by God. If acceptance of a gift is a moral guideline then once again, you have to ask why this strange God was invented to support a moral code that is anarchic.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

Wow. That is permissable? That is an astoundingly arrogant paragraph: "cult following of nerdiness", comparison to Trekkies, "debating fictional plots", "large fictional base of writings", "to take pointless intellectual positions", "to look big and clever".

I'll have to agree this comment is somewhat OTT.

pH, I'd refer you to the second of only two rules in the charter. Suffice to say your comments would have been better rephrased. From now on you'd be doing yourself a favor to watch this - for one you might not sound so out of your depth*.

* a feeling I'm all too familiar with debating with Excelsior

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I'd refer you to the second of only two rules in the charter. Suffice to say your comments would have been better rephrased. From now on you'd be doing yourself a favor to watch this

I have to second that, that was a little to strong for my taste. It was not merrited and quite ungracious.

Funsterdelux

Rev Hellfire wrote:

he/she/it may just ignore you.

Sorry you've lost me.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

God doesn't want us to "follow his law" in the sense that following his law is impossible. So often in the New Testament that is explicitly written that I can't understand how common it is that Christianity is cast in the light of "Obey God and he'll be happy".

I think we are getting two things mixed up.

Yes there is the "Let Jesus in your heart and you will live forever in heaven" part of the teachings in the later parts Bible. This area is a quite abstract idea, and is debated even amoung Christians. A lot of Protestant religions say that once you have accepted Jesus you are saved, where as Catholics believe that you have to accept Jesus but you also constantly sin, and must constantly repent (which is why you have confessionals).

But this is all a slightly seperate issue..

What was being pointed out is the fact that the Bible is full to the brim of morality stories, from the laws of Moses to the stories of Jesus, most of them centering around not pissing off God. These are all morality stories, designed to convey an idea of morality to the reader.

lostexpectation

What is this Grace you talk of Ex, I read the definition just then but Im not sure what you are getting at.

What is Grace in people's everday lives.

It seems to me to just this abstract construct only devout Chrisitians would be interested in.

Excelsior

See I think this is the biggest failure of the main Irish church that Irish citizens are completely unfamiliar with Grace.

From conversations with Asiaprod, a member of Boards.ie living as an Irish Buddhist in Japan, I understand that dharma is to Buddhism as Grace is to Christianity. It is the core of the faith- the way the faith works out.

That is what it represents in terms of Christianity. It should be the thing that people base their faith around and not just something theologians or ministry students should stroke their chins over. In other cultures and in many local churches in Ireland it occupies its rightful place at the heart of the Christian life. Sadly, obviously not in all.

Even more than most brilliant things, it can't be summed up in a simple definition. But some comments might shed a little light on it. First thing, it is the "good news" that the Gospels are speaking of. Grace holds that God dispenses gifts, not wages. That he loves us because of who he is and not because of who we are. Its not fair because it says God loves the murderer as much as the murdered and seeks to have them both with him in his house. Grace is the fact that God has forgiven us before we are capable of saying sorry.

U2 have a song about it which is quite good if cheesy.

lostexpectation

its a very nice thought :rolleyes: