John 3:16........... A Question

[Whats up]

Originally Posted by friscomatt

hogwash...I don't need to have a God to know that killing a person is not a socially accepted standard/moral/goodness (pick your own term).

But even that ethic is based on Mosaic Law, i.e. the principal that all humans are created in the image of God (which was ground breaking in 1000-1200 BC). Again, you're mistaking 'God' for the religious ethics and dogma that you've been presented with as 'Christianity.'

[friscomatt]

Originally Posted by Whats up

But even that ethic is based on Mosaic Law

I disagree. That "ethic", I believe is based on the instinctual survival of a species. In GENERAL animals of a species (humans included) do not kill each other. This has nothing to do with a God, or even goodness. This is a function of the survival of a species. I doubt if you asked a rabbit what God is, or Mosaic Law or what good, or bad is that you would get much of an answer. It may cock its head sideways a bit, but you still probably will not get an answer.

You may not like my example but I equate human being as nothing more than a smarter ape with no divinity or higher power associated. Human behavior has been molded in large part around one axiom ... survival, for self and species, just like most any other animal.

[wilx1]

Originally Posted by friscomatt

hogwash...I don't need to have a God to know that killing a person is not a socially accepted standard/moral/goodness (pick your own term).

Your making my point for me. Society becomes the arbiter of what is good. Since the mood of society is always changing, the concept of "good" always changes unless there is a universal standard, or universal law. While you might say that something is good or acceptable for your society, you cannot judge a different community or society that believes, for example, that gender based infanticide is acceptable. The following is from Kai Nelson, an atheist philosopher and author:

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

Kai Nielsen, “Why Should I Be Moral?” American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.

[binz]

Originally Posted by wilx1

While you might say that something is good or acceptable for your society, you cannot judge a different community or society that believes, for example, that gender based infanticide is acceptable.

sure I can. I will judge obvious bad behavior all day long. Honor killings are bad. Stoning people is bad. Death camps are bad. Rape is bad. Child abuse is bad. Wife beating is bad. Robbing an old lady is bad. Child molestation is bad. Setting a dog on fire is bad.

I don't need a holy book to guide me through these assessements. In fact, when holy books get involved, what is obviously bad can be deemed to be acceptable.

[Whats up]

Originally Posted by friscomatt

I disagree. That "ethic", I believe is based on the instinctual survival of a species. In GENERAL animals of a species (humans included) do not kill each other. This has nothing to do with a God, or even goodness. This is a function of the survival of a species. I doubt if you asked a rabbit what God is, or Mosaic Law or what good, or bad is that you would get much of an answer. It may cock its head sideways a bit, but you still probably will not get an answer.

You may not like my example but I equate human being as nothing more than a smarter ape with no divinity or higher power associated. Human behavior has been molded in large part around one axiom ... survival, for self and species, just like most any other animal.

But humans kill each other all the time for terrible reasons, even (as others have pointed out) for religious reasons. In fact, there is evidence that in ancient societies human life was not considered all that precious, unless you were the ruler. Humans have (even going back to the Homosapien/Neanderthal interaction?) shown a shocking ability to kill each other with ease. As bad of a rap as "religion" gets (deservedly so perhaps) it is also people such as Moses, Plato, Jesus etc who are responsible for the bettering of our species by introducing such concepts as the sanctity of life or the idea that we should love others.

[Whats up]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

Only because Mosaic law exists. Do you believe that goodness would not exist absent a belief in God and/or Mosaic law?

No goodness would not cease to exist absent my belief in God, as God himself would still exist whether i believed it or not, therefore goodness would still exist. Absolute goodness does exist, regardless of our response to it.

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by binz

sure I can. I will judge obvious bad behavior all day long. Honor killings are bad. Stoning people is bad. Death camps are bad. Rape is bad. Child abuse is bad. Wife beating is bad. Robbing an old lady is bad. Child molestation is bad. Setting a dog on fire is bad.

I don't need a holy book to guide me through these assessements. In fact, when holy books get involved, what is obviously bad can be deemed to be acceptable.

By holy books I assume you are including the Bible.
Do these assessments you have observed apply to us now?
What are some examples you have singled out?

While I don't agree with wilx1 when he said we can't judge a different society when it comes to infanticide, I do agree that if you do not believe in a perfect and holy God then you have no standard to base right from wrong. If it weren't for the presence of God's spirit in the world, we would be living in a lawless depraved society.

[Whats up]

Originally Posted by binz

sure I can. I will judge obvious bad behavior all day long. Honor killings are bad. Stoning people is bad. Death camps are bad. Rape is bad. Child abuse is bad. Wife beating is bad. Robbing an old lady is bad. Child molestation is bad. Setting a dog on fire is bad.

I don't need a holy book to guide me through these assessements. In fact, when holy books get involved, what is obviously bad can be deemed to be acceptable.

But what is this based on? You know these things are wrong (as do I). But why? What are the underlying principals here and where do they come from?

[friscomatt]

Originally Posted by Whats up

But humans kill each other all the time for terrible reasons, even (as others have pointed out) for religious reasons. In fact, there is evidence that in ancient societies human life was not considered all that precious, unless you were the ruler. Humans have (even going back to the Homosapien/Neanderthal interaction?) shown a shocking ability to kill each other with ease. As bad of a rap as "religion" gets (deservedly so perhaps) it is also people such as Moses, Plato, Jesus etc who are responsible for the bettering of our species by introducing such concepts as the sanctity of life or the idea that we should love others.

That's why I said "In GENERAL".

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

If it weren't for the presence of God's spirit in the world, we would be living in a lawless depraved society.

You sure? If that were true, surely we could see some correlation between atheistic population of a country and murder rate, right (compare japan with US)? And wouldn't atheists be disproportionally represented in the prison population?

The stats just don't back up your theory.

"god's spirit" is imaginary. You attribute people's natural instincts to an imaginary thing.

Remote tribal communities still exist today. They've had zero contact with the outside world. They've never been introduced to "god's spirit". But yet, they know good from bad.

Being good is necessary for the survival of a species. It's just science.