DescentBB

Lothar wrote:

Duper wrote:When God says, do not murder or lie, that's absolute.

So why does God call Rahab "righteous for what she did"? What she did was she lied in order to hide the Hebrew spies. And she isn't said to be forgiven for it, but RIGHTEOUS. That's pretty disturbing from the "not lying is a moral absolute" perspective.

God says "do not lie" pretty clearly. Elsewhere, He says "do not wear two kinds of fabric" with the exact same clarity. Neither one are moral absolutes; rather, both are meant to teach what God cares about.

interesting thoughts. Work was .. rotten (almost said murder ) my body hurts, my brain hurts.. I'll sleep on it.

but with this.. so the ten commandments and the whole of Leviticus is bunk? and God contradicts himself? ( i know that's not what you're saying. It just sounds that way)

Duper wrote:so the ten commandments and the whole of Leviticus is bunk?

Nope.

The ten commandments, the whole of Leviticus, and so on, is *meant to teach*. Doesn't mean it's bunk, just means it's not meant to be treated as a legal code for all time. It was meant to teach people what God is like and what God values, and show us we don't live up to God's standards, in order to draw us toward Christ. (Read through Galatians, and pay attention to how 3:24 flows with the rest of the book.)

Kilarin wrote:2: Satan is in control of this universe, and thats the reason it is in such bad shape.

Warhammer wrote:Where is #2 coming from? I have never heard that anywhere. People giving into temptation, I've heard of. I am just curious.

Actually, I think I phrased it poorly, it should have been that Satan has SOME control of this universe, or influence over it. All here is not as God meant it to be.

Job 1:6-8 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

The context implies lordship, Satan came to take his place among the princes since he claimed princeship over the earth.

Romans 8:22-25 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

All of creation is under the same curse that we are. The physical universe awaits redemption as well, when it will be remade into what it was supposed to be.

Bettina wrote:So, you have some inherent morals when your born, influence by your environment, and the rest you learn from people around you.
...So, the bottom line for me is that you don't have to believe in god to be good. Its not just a religious choice. Its a human choice and anyone who trys to tell you its only a spiritual thing is fooling you.

There are two important questions here, but they are VERY different.

One question is, Can you know right from wrong without being religious. On that point, almost all great Christian theologians would say uncategorically yes.

The other question is, can right and wrong have any real MEANING outside of an external, absolute, transcendent source? And to that, the only logical answer is no.

I'm not certain which question you were answering.

If the source and meaning of morals are a combination of instincts, environmental conditioning, and learning. Then what makes your morals different from Osama BenLaden? His morals came from the same sources. His instincts say that his people are more important than any other, a completely valid genetic point of view. His environmental conditioning taught him a very different value for life from yours or mine, and he learned from others that people who don't agree with him are monsters who should be destroyed at all costs.

Who or what is to judge between you? Why are you right, and Osama so terribly wrong? Or is the question similiar to asking if you have blue eyes (genetics), or greet friends by shaking hands or kissing (culture and learning). It seems obvious to almost all humans that the question of right or wrong is VERY different from every other question of instinct, culture, or education.

Duper wrote:so the ten commandments and the whole of Leviticus is bunk? and God contradicts himself?

God gave us two perfect laws.

Mat 22:37-39 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

These laws are without flaw and without exception. There is no grey here.

Many people think that when Christ said the above he was giving us new commandments, New Testament commandments to replace the Old Testament 10 commandments. But that is not the case. Christ was simply quoting the old testament.

Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Lev 19:18 thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

But people are idiots. They can't handle the simple perfection of such laws. They start asking questions like: "who is my neighbour?", and "can I worship an image of God?", and "Can I love my neighbour while I am loving his wife?". They need details. And thus, we get the Ten Commandments.. And the Ten Commandments are good! They attempt to provide details for the Two Commandments. The first four give details on how to Love God, and the last six give details on how to love your neighbour.

Unfortunantly, details always drag you away from the original meaning. You just can't give enough details to cover every possible situation where you need to implement the two laws. And, with details, come loopholes. I don't have to help my neighbour if it is breaking the Sabbath. It said, "Honor they Father and Mother, not my Aunt and Uncle...", etc.

Now MORE details were needed, to try and clear up these new questions. And thus we get the Mosaic law. And it doesn't take much of a glimpse at the Mosaic law to see that the more details it added, the further it drifted away from the original intent.

As fallen sinful humans, we NEED some details to help us implement the two commandments. But if we ever forget the original point, Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself, then we will find those details a stumbling block instead of an assistance. We will find that we can keep the letter of the law without having any of the spirit.

well said.

Paul wrote:If you don't mind, I would be interested to hear your explanation of how it is deleterious to society (and why that matters) and how life as inherent value.

I really am not knowledgeable enough to explain any further than I did except to say that I think, as evidence, societies that tend to illegalize murder have been more successful than those that have not. Barbarian societies have run themselves into the ground, whereas societies that appreciate and acknowledge the value of life have been successful. Think of this as natural selection on the societal level.

Paul wrote:What about sadists and masochists? But what's so good about happiness, anyway? It's just a chemical response to stimuli, realized as electrical impulses passing among cells that happen to form a brain.

I don't think that reducing happiness to chemical stimuli really changes anything. I mean, aren't our ethical decisions just more of the same chemical stimuli? Yet we seem to ascribe significance to them.

With response to masochism, I think that what a masochist immedietely is seeking is pleasure and is obtaining it via first experiencing pain. Although pleasure has something to do with happiness, it isn't happiness in and of itself. Besides, even if a masochist was a person who sought unhappiness in order to acquire happiness, this would only demonstrate how dedicated this person actually is to achieving happiness if they are willing to literally beat themselves up over it. However, I still don't think that you can say that a person would be unhappy with happiness (because then this person wouldn't really be happy).

Happiness is important because I think that it is our ultimate motivator. You might think that your ultimate motivator might be God or some synonym of it, but really, would you be doing this whole Christianity thing if you were under the impression that Christians went to hell and everyone else was saved? Would you be doing good deeds if not for their heavenly reward or mental feel-good?

Lothar wrote:That's beside the point. The question is not what people would be happy with. It's what is ethical or good -- and I don't think it makes sense to just assume happiness must automatically be ethical or good. (Even so, there are people who would be unhappy with other peoples' happiness, and whole cultures that have considered other cultures' happiness as completely irrelevant. See WWII Germany, the Civil War South, and so on.)

Yeah, I've agreed that different societies may disagree on what happiness consists in. And I would also agree that happiness in itself isn't "good." (E.g. temporary, short-lived happiness and happiness that might lead to future unhappiness). But what's the point of ethics if they aren't going to be beneficial to us (which I intrepet as to bring us happiness)?

Lothar wrote:The point isn't that I could *convince him* or *force him* or anything of the sort. It's not that I could threaten him into compliance.

It's that I could honestly say "you are wrong" and not just "your moral system differs from mine".

How is it different to think that God out there agrees with you than to think that if there was a God out there he would agree with you?

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:So, you have some inherent morals when your born, influence by your environment, and the rest you learn from people around you.
...So, the bottom line for me is that you don't have to believe in god to be good. Its not just a religious choice. Its a human choice and anyone who trys to tell you its only a spiritual thing is fooling you.

There are two important questions here, but they are VERY different.

One question is, Can you know right from wrong without being religious. On that point, almost all great Christian theologians would say uncategorically yes.

Thank you very much for that.....I do have christian like morals and I was afraid you were going to say no. Though I don't believe in god.... I am good.

Kilarin wrote: The other question is, can right and wrong have any real MEANING outside of an external, absolute, transcendent source? And to that, the only logical answer is no.

I say yes it can because its basically the life your living now. If you live your life decently and pass those traits on to your children, then your life had MEANING. If your not married, and have no children, then you pass your moral influence on those that you
touch personally in your life. I do it every sunday in church....to the kids at the park in the summer....the senior home once a month.....and on and on..... My life has meaning, and someday I'm going to work with troubled kids, so I will have a purpose too.

Kilarin wrote: I'm not certain which question you were answering.

If the source and meaning of morals are a combination of instincts, environmental conditioning, and learning. Then what makes your morals different from Osama BenLaden? His morals came from the same sources. His instincts say that his people are more important than any other, a completely valid genetic point of view. His environmental conditioning taught him a very different value for life from yours or mine, and he learned from others that people who don't agree with him are monsters who should be destroyed at all costs.

I said exactly that in my post.

Kilarin wrote: Who or what is to judge between you? Why are you right, and Osama so terribly wrong? Or is the question similiar to asking if you have blue eyes (genetics), or greet friends by shaking hands or kissing (culture and learning). It seems obvious to almost all humans that the question of right or wrong is VERY different from every other question of instinct, culture, or education.

I said in my post that right and wrong is ultimately determined by the people. When I say society, I mean the world society which already knows that genocide, killing people in the name of religion, theft, rape, etc, etc, are wrong. We do not need a god to know that this is not tolerated well with the people of the world. I will use the United Nations as my benchmark. The UN has already condemmed Osama, morally and otherwise. World outrage was clear.

Again, you do not need a belief in god to be good on this earth. You need a belief in god to believe you will go to heaven.

Bettina

Jeff250 wrote:

Paul wrote:If you don't mind, I would be interested to hear your explanation of how it is deleterious to society (and why that matters) and how life as inherent value.

I really am not knowledgeable enough to explain any further than I did except to say that I think, as evidence, societies that tend to illegalize murder have been more successful than those that have not. Barbarian societies have run themselves into the ground, whereas societies that appreciate and acknowledge the value of life have been successful. Think of this as natural selection on the societal level.

I agree with you that a society that follows what are generally accepted as good morals will be more successful. However, does that mean non-accepted behavior is actually wrong, or just that it has a negative impact on society? As humans, we have the ability to think for ourselves, and need not be bound by instinct or any "evolved morals."

Jeff250 wrote:

Paul wrote:What about sadists and masochists? But what's so good about happiness, anyway? It's just a chemical response to stimuli, realized as electrical impulses passing among cells that happen to form a brain.

I don't think that reducing happiness to chemical stimuli really changes anything. I mean, aren't our ethical decisions just more of the same chemical stimuli? Yet we seem to ascribe significance to them.

With response to masochism, I think that what a masochist immedietely is seeking is pleasure and is obtaining it via first experiencing pain. Although pleasure has something to do with happiness, it isn't happiness in and of itself. Besides, even if a masochist was a person who sought unhappiness in order to acquire happiness, this would only demonstrate how dedicated this person actually is to achieving happiness if they are willing to literally beat themselves up over it. However, I still don't think that you can say that a person would be unhappy with happiness (because then this person wouldn't really be happy).

Yeah, I don't really know what the difference is between pleasure and happiness, or whether a masochist actually achieves either... it could just be a twisted, guilt-induced sense of justice being done.

Jeff250 wrote:Happiness is important because I think that it is our ultimate motivator. You might think that your ultimate motivator might be God or some synonym of it, but really, would you be doing this whole Christianity thing if you were under the impression that Christians went to hell and everyone else was saved? Would you be doing good deeds if not for their heavenly reward or mental feel-good?

If I thought Christians went to hell and everyone else was saved, I certainly wouldn't be a Christian. But that would mean either that God would be rewarding that which he disapproves of, or that Christianity is just plain wrong.

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:That's beside the point. The question is not what people would be happy with. It's what is ethical or good -- and I don't think it makes sense to just assume happiness must automatically be ethical or good. (Even so, there are people who would be unhappy with other peoples' happiness, and whole cultures that have considered other cultures' happiness as completely irrelevant. See WWII Germany, the Civil War South, and so on.)

Yeah, I've agreed that different societies may disagree on what happiness consists in. And I would also agree that happiness in itself isn't "good." (E.g. temporary, short-lived happiness and happiness that might lead to future unhappiness). But what's the point of ethics if they aren't going to be beneficial to us (which I intrepet as to bring us happiness)?

My understanding of ethics is that its about doing what is right, regardless of the happiness that results. Note that just because something doesn't make you feel happy, it may still be beneficial. For example, nobody likes being punished, but it makes you into a better person (when administered correctly, of course).

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:The point isn't that I could *convince him* or *force him* or anything of the sort. It's not that I could threaten him into compliance.

It's that I could honestly say "you are wrong" and not just "your moral system differs from mine".

How is it different to think that God out there agrees with you than to think that if there was a God out there he would agree with you?

The difference is that if you only think there might be a God, then there may not be a God. And if there is no God, there's nothing on which to firmly establish your moral system.

Bet51987 wrote:If you live your life decently and pass those traits on to your children, then your life had MEANING. If your not married, and have no children, then you pass your moral influence on those that you
touch personally in your life. I do it every sunday in church....to the kids at the park in the summer....the senior home once a month.....and on and on..... My life has meaning, and someday I'm going to work with troubled kids, so I will have a purpose too.

What about when the people you influenced die? Was your life still meaningful? Suppose a few million years from now every human has died, maybe the sun has gone nova or something. Was your life still meaningful?

Working with troubled kids is certainly a good, noble thing to do, but if we're all just a bunch of atoms that happen to stick together temporarily, then what is the real meaning?

Bet51987 wrote:I said in my post that right and wrong is ultimately determined by the people. When I say society, I mean the world society which already knows that genocide, killing people in the name of religion, theft, rape, etc, etc, are wrong. We do not need a god to know that this is not tolerated well with the people of the world. I will use the United Nations as my benchmark. The UN has already condemmed Osama, morally and otherwise. World outrage was clear.

The UN hasn't done too much about a lot of genocides going on in Africa right now. Heard anything about Sudan lately? http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/ ... 200617.htm

I would suggest that holding an imperfect body as the benchmark of what is right will eventually lead to extreme disappointment.

Bet51987 wrote:Again, you do not need a belief in god to be good on this earth. You need a belief in god to believe you will go to heaven.

Quite true. But if there is no god, and no ultimate moral guidelines, where's the incentive to be good? Nothing can be "right" inherently in an amoral, uncaring universe.

Paul wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:If you live your life decently and pass those traits on to your children, then your life had MEANING. If your not married, and have no children, then you pass your moral influence on those that you
touch personally in your life. I do it every sunday in church....to the kids at the park in the summer....the senior home once a month.....and on and on..... My life has meaning, and someday I'm going to work with troubled kids, so I will have a purpose too.

What about when the people you influenced die? Was your life still meaningful? Suppose a few million years from now every human has died, maybe the sun has gone nova or something. Was your life still meaningful?

Working with troubled kids is certainly a good, noble thing to do, but if we're all just a bunch of atoms that happen to stick together temporarily, then what is the real meaning?

If you were in church and came and asked me that question, I would tell you what you wanted to hear. I would tell your children that Santa was real too just like my dad told me he was. I learned later....by myself...that Santa wasn't real. Did my dad tell me a lie? Would I be lying to you? My dad instilled religion into me along with moral values and I learned later...by myself...that I didn't believe in god.

Since you and I are not face to face, I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned, I believe the universe needed no god to come into existence and the meaning and purpose is up to us to determine for our own personal satisfaction. However, I still hang on to the hope that there is a higher power that is going to supply us with an answer...its just not the bible god.

So..as long as I am alive, it has meaning and purpose like I explained....I don't need a god to give my life meaning or purpose. This is a very hard question to answer.

Paul wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I said in my post that right and wrong is ultimately determined by the people. When I say society, I mean the world society which already knows that genocide, killing people in the name of religion, theft, rape, etc, etc, are wrong. We do not need a god to know that this is not tolerated well with the people of the world. I will use the United Nations as my benchmark. The UN has already condemmed Osama, morally and otherwise. World outrage was clear.

The UN hasn't done too much about a lot of genocides going on in Africa right now. Heard anything about Sudan lately? http://www.nationmedia.com/eastafrican/ ... 200617.htm

I would suggest that holding an imperfect body as the benchmark of what is right will eventually lead to extreme disappointment.

I agree that the UN is a major disappointment, and your right. I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say this but I always ask "where was god". This is the problem that I can't deal with.

Paul wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Again, you do not need a belief in god to be good on this earth. You need a belief in god to believe you will go to heaven.

Quite true. But if there is no god, and no ultimate moral guidelines, where's the incentive to be good? Nothing can be "right" inherently in an amoral, uncaring universe.

I already said what the reasons to be good were. What I need to know from you is this....are atheists/agnostics bad people for their beliefs?
Edit: would you let me go out with your son?

Bettina

Paul wrote:My understanding of ethics is that its about doing what is right, regardless of the happiness that results.

You've got it half-right. Ethics is about doing what is right because of the overall happiness that results with everyone. An ethical system that is not beneficial to us is pointless to follow. You have to admit it too. Unless you think that God just arbitrarily made up rules, regardless of what was really best for us.

Paul wrote:Note that just because something doesn't make you feel happy, it may still be beneficial.

How so? Give me an example of how something could be beneficial to a person that won't ultimately lead to the happiness of someone.

Health? No, health isn't valued in and of itself. It makes you feel good, which leads to happiness. Money? No, money isn't valued in and of itself. It's supposed to give you material pleasures, which are supposed to make you happy.

Paul wrote:The difference is that if you only think there might be a God, then there may not be a God. And if there is no God, there's nothing on which to firmly establish your moral system.

What you think has no bearing on whether or not there actually is a God. Regardless of whether you think that there is a God or merely suppose that there may be a God, the possibility that God does not exist still remains. I'll ask again for redundancy: In the context of ethics and authority, how is it different to think that God agrees with you than to think that if there was a God he would agree with you?

Bet51987 wrote:would you let me go out with your son?

Bettina

Well, considering I'm only 20, I imagine if I had a son he would be a bit young for you.

I'll get back to you more seriously tomorrow (it's bedtime now, I'm one of those strange college students who likes to get to bed by 11:00), but I couldn't let that one go.

Bettina wrote:If you live your life decently and pass those traits on to your children, then your life had MEANING.

Sorry, I wasn't questioning if your life had meaning. You seem to be a good person at heart. I think your life has meaning because you DO believe in ethics. I was questioning if ETHICS have meaning if there is no absolute yardstick to measure them by. I think the only logical conclusion is that they don't. BUT, that doesn't stop a large percentage of humanity from believing in them anyway, and thank goodness for that!

Bettina wrote:I said in my post that right and wrong is ultimately determined by the people. When I say society, I mean the world society which already knows that genocide, killing people in the name of religion, theft, rape, etc, etc, are wrong.

Treating ethics as a "majority vote" thing is dangerous. The majority approved of slavery for most of earths history. If hitler had won WWII, the majority would approve of all kinds of terrible things right now.

So you see, I AGREE with you that most of humanity knows right from wrong. It's just that if they don't have an external source for that knowledge, it is meaningless and subject to the winds of opinion. Note that this external source does not HAVE to be "the God of the Bible". Your "Higher Power" will do just fine. But the knowledge must come from without if saying "Murder is wrong" is going to have any more meaning then saying "I don't like spinach"

Bettina wrote:What I need to know from you is this....are atheists/agnostics bad people for their beliefs?

Do I disagree with them, obviously.
Do I think that the philosophy is DANGEROUS if taken to it's logical conclusion, yes.
Do I think that all atheists and agnostics are bad people? of course not. I know too many who are good people. The sense of "right and wrong", "natural law", the "tao", whatever you want to call it, is built deeply within us. We do not abandon it easily.

Bettina wrote:Edit: would you let me go out with your son?

Would I let him be your friend? Certainly!
Would I approve of a marriage? (assuming we aged my son by 10 or 11 years to catch him up to you, and then aged BOTH of you a few more years to get to a decent marrying age...)
No.
Now please don't take that as an insult. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: is a command that protects BOTH sides. Think about your relationship with your father. You feel that you have to hide your disbelief in order not to hurt him. It is not fair, to EITHER party, when one is a serious believer and the other is not. I come from a family that was somewhat split on religious issues. My parents have stuck together and made it work for over 40 years now, but it was a serious problem, and still is. It CAN be made to work, but it's much harder. He wants to have family worship, reading the Bible makes you want to vomit. He wants to teach the kids to love God, but you keep telling them that God doesn't exist, or is a villan. God is THE most important thing in his life, MORE important then you; and you want nothing to do with God. He wants to spend eternity with you, so he can't HELP but keep trying to convert you, and it makes you want to convert him with a monkey wrench.

Really why saddle yourself with that if you don't have to? Families work best when both parties are agreed on the central issues of religion.

Jeff250 wrote:Ethics is about doing what is right because of the overall happiness that results with everyone. An ethical system that is not beneficial to us is pointless to follow. You have to admit it too.

Nope.

Ok, first WHY should I care about anyone elses happiness? ESPECIALLY, why should I sacrifice my own happiness for someone elses? If you say "Making everyone happy is just the right thing to do", you are already ASSUMING the ethical system who's basis we are discussing. If you say, "Because only thinking about your own happiness is selfish", again, you are already assuming that we OUGHT to be unselfish. You can't use ethics to defend ethics.

Of course, the argument is often made that if I make others happy, it increases the chance that they will make ME happy. But that can't explain ethics adequately.

Lets look at a hypothetical example:
Villain is about to shoot a little girl. The only possible action you have at the time is to jump in front of her and take the bullet yourself. And for the arguments sake, lets just assume that the shot will be fatal to which ever one of you gets hit. (We could go through contortions to make this so, but why bother? It's a hypothetical!)
It's not in your self-interest to give your life for another because there is no possible way you could benefit from it afterwards.
You might say, "If I do this, then someone else might protect MY children" But that assumes that you have a self-interest in your progeny's survival after your death. Which CAN be argued, but lets just avoid it by twisting our hypothetical further and say you are sterile and have no children or close relatives.
Which leaves, "It's for the good of humanity", but why is that in your self-interest if you are dead? Giving up your life for "humanity" is no different then giving up your life for just the girl. It can't be in your self-interest if you are dead.
No carrot, stick, or self-interest, just a little girl who is going to be dead in a few seconds... unless you trade your life for hers. Selflessly. For no reason other than that's what you OUGHT to do.

And this goes way beyond hoping for a reward in heaven. A Christian SHOULD reach the point where the reward is not the issue. Where they would do what was right, even if the only possible result was punishment instead of reward. Have you read Huckleberry Finn? Huck, due to the bizzare ethical code that was often taught to children in the south back then, thought that if he didn't turn in Jim, he would be guilty of theft and would burn for eternity in Hell. He struggles with this, and eventually decides that he just cant do it and says: "All right, then, I'll go to hell"

Ethics, despite any personal cost, just because it is RIGHT.

Yes, I've read it, and I think we agree though more than you realize. If Huck had actually followed through with his ethical system blindly because it was "right," then he would have just turned Jim in. It's because he realized that ethics isn't about blindly following anything. It's a system that's supposed to help us as a whole. And if it fails to do that, then it needs to be reconsidered.

Kilarin wrote:Ok, first WHY should I care about anyone elses happiness? ESPECIALLY, why should I sacrifice my own happiness for someone elses? If you say "Making everyone happy is just the right thing to do", you are already ASSUMING the ethical system who's basis we are discussing.

One thing that immediately occurs to me is the prisoner's dilemma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
"Tit for tat" has been found to be the most successful strategy for both the individual and on the whole.

But other than that, another reason is because doing nice things actually makes ourselves happy.

Another reason is that people like the attention or fame of doing nice things.

Another reason is that a lot of people believe in reward in a future life.

Another reason is that sometimes people just "do" without really reasoning it out.

If you think it's because it's the "right thing to do," then you're only joking yourself.

Kilarin wrote:Villain is about to shoot a little girl. The only possible action you have at the time is to jump in front of her and take the bullet yourself. And for the arguments sake, lets just assume that the shot will be fatal to which ever one of you gets hit.

A lot of people would rather die early with fame or hero-status than later and never be remembered again for the rest of the ages. But see the above list too.

Besides, I could flip this question around on you just as easily. Why should you take a bullet for a girl if you're just going to die (neglecting again the afterlife)? Because it's the "right thing to do"? Seems that that assumes the very ethical system that you're trying to demonstrate.

Besides, if that's not enough, then you're going to just have to trust me on this, because I know that if God exists, he thinks I'm right.

Jeff250 wrote:It's because he realized that ethics isn't about blindly following anything. It's a system that's supposed to help us as a whole. And if it fails to do that, then it needs to be reconsidered.

But the point was, you said that Christians were only interested in doing good for a reward, or to avoid punishment. The carrot and stick idea. Huck could NOT have been acting in his own self interest.

Jeff250 wrote:A lot of people would rather die early with fame or hero-status than later and never be remembered again for the rest of the ages. But see the above list too.

Ok, so add to the hypothetical that you will die an unknown, no one is likely to ever hear of your heroism. And to clarify, I was specifically speaking of someone who did NOT believe in any "eternal" reward in this situation, so we can't use that as a motivator. So our "hero" here is a dedicated atheist who does not expect anyone to ever hear of his dead. (I meant to specify that, sorry)

Your list of "motivations" contains items that fit into two categories. Enlightened self interest, and ignorance. If we eliminate the hope of future reward and fame, then nothing is left to motivate our "hero" except ignorance. If I am understanding your stance correctly, the only reason to trade his life for the girls in this situation is that he is simply too dumb to realize that he shouldn't do it. A real Darwin award nominee.

Jeff250 wrote:Why should you take a bullet for a girl if you're just going to die (neglecting again the afterlife)? Because it's the "right thing to do"? Seems that that assumes the very ethical system that you're trying to demonstrate.

Ah, but I CAN assume the ethical system, because I'm arguing that ethics come from an external, absolute, transcendent source. My argument is "from authority". You've got to defend it without the authority. So yes, my answer is "because it is the right thing to do". Even if I get NO benefit out of it whatsoever. Not that I actually act that unselfishly, but yes, I do believe that we should.

Jeff250 wrote:If you think it's because it's the "right thing to do," then you're only joking yourself.

So just to clarify, you do NOT believe that ethics have ANY meaning beyond enlightened self interest. Helping others is done because the end result is help to ourselves. Anyone attempting to do something "right" that will not in some way benefit themselves is acting in ignorance. If they were smart, they would only act in ways that benefit themselves. Am I misreading your stance?

This IS a consistent point of view. I can't argue against it at all. It's just very rare that people will actually admit that they do not believe that right and wrong has any meaning at all beyond helping yourself.

Jeff250 wrote:then you're going to just have to trust me on this, because I know that if God exists, he thinks I'm right.

Ha!

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote: would you let me go out with your son?

Would I let him be your friend? Certainly!
Would I approve of a marriage? (assuming we aged my son by 10 or 11 years to catch him up to you, and then aged BOTH of you a few more years to get to a decent marrying age...)
No.
Now please don't take that as an insult. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: is a command that protects BOTH sides. Think about your relationship with your father. You feel that you have to hide your disbelief in order not to hurt him. It is not fair, to EITHER party, when one is a serious believer and the other is not. I come from a family that was somewhat split on religious issues. My parents have stuck together and made it work for over 40 years now, but it was a serious problem, and still is. It CAN be made to work, but it's much harder. He wants to have family worship, reading the Bible makes you want to vomit. He wants to teach the kids to love God, but you keep telling them that God doesn't exist, or is a villan. God is THE most important thing in his life, MORE important then you; and you want nothing to do with God. He wants to spend eternity with you, so he can't HELP but keep trying to convert you, and it makes you want to convert him with a monkey wrench.

Really why saddle yourself with that if you don't have to? Families work best when both parties are agreed on the central issues of religion.

First, I didn't feel insulted...maybe a little disappointed, but not insulted. My father and me are different because he doesn't know how I feel.

Your son and I (hypothetically of course) would have no secrets and yet would be in love with each other. I would raise our children in his religion and we would all go to church together as a family. But inside, I would still be an atheist.

Would you allow me to marry him then? I really want to know how you would feel.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:If you were in church and came and asked me that question, I would tell you what you wanted to hear. I would tell your children that Santa was real too just like my dad told me he was. I learned later....by myself...that Santa wasn't real. Did my dad tell me a lie? Would I be lying to you? My dad instilled religion into me along with moral values and I learned later...by myself...that I didn't believe in god.

If you tell someone Santa is real, yes, you're lying. If you tell someone God is real, either he is and you're telling the truth, or he isn't, and you're either lying or deceived yourself.

Bet51987 wrote:Since you and I are not face to face, I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned, I believe the universe needed no god to come into existence and the meaning and purpose is up to us to determine for our own personal satisfaction. However, I still hang on to the hope that there is a higher power that is going to supply us with an answer...its just not the bible god.

So..as long as I am alive, it has meaning and purpose like I explained....I don't need a god to give my life meaning or purpose. This is a very hard question to answer.

It's supposed to be hard to answer. I think what you're saying is that you have taken up a purpose for yourself and decided that fulfilling that purpose is what gives life meaning. That can certainly give you a feeling of meaningfulness, but that doesn't give it meaning in any absolute sense. The effect most people's lives have is like throwing a stone into a pond, there's some local effect, but it all soon quickly dies out and is forgotten.

Bet51987 wrote:I already said what the reasons to be good were. What I need to know from you is this....are atheists/agnostics bad people for their beliefs?

I think you've explained more along the lines of how you determine what is "good" or "bad" (seemingly based on some mystical social psyche), not really reasons why you should prefer one or the other.

I don't think having trouble believing in God is wicked, I simply think it is misguided. Certainly anyone can have morals and do "good" deeds. But without God to define an absolute reference frame, any definition of "good" and "bad" is fairly arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no reason doing "good" is inherently "better" than doing "bad."

Bet51987 wrote:would you let me go out with your son?

If he was old enough to make decisions for himself, I would let him make them. I would certainly offer my advice, which would be not to go out with you since I view dating as primarily trying to see whether you would be interested in marrying someone, and two people with diametrically opposed viewpoints marrying is not going to end well.

Jeff250 wrote:You've got it half-right. Ethics is about doing what is right because of the overall happiness that results with everyone. An ethical system that is not beneficial to us is pointless to follow. You have to admit it too. Unless you think that God just arbitrarily made up rules, regardless of what was really best for us.

I believe that's what is known as utilitarianism. That's not the end-all of ethics.

Jeff250 wrote:Give me an example of how something could be beneficial to a person that won't ultimately lead to the happiness of someone.

Health? No, health isn't valued in and of itself. It makes you feel good, which leads to happiness. Money? No, money isn't valued in and of itself. It's supposed to give you material pleasures, which are supposed to make you happy.

I don't know much about you, but let's say you're happily married, got a wife and couple little kids. Your wife loves you, trusts you intimately, and is quite happy. Same thing for the kids.

What they don't know, however, is that you were having an affair with the girl who just died in a car wreck. No one else knew, either, and there's no way they'll find out.

So, the total happiness was increased, since you and the dead girl were happy having your affair and your family was never less happy because they know nothing about it. Was your breach of trust and marital vows ethical, since the general happiness was increased?

Now you also have the opportunity either to tell your family, or to hide the deed forever. Which one is ethical?

If you tell your wife, she will be unhappy, and mistrustful of you, and will blame herself for your infidelity. You will begin to quarrel, and your family life will become increasingly unhappy. You'll work longer hours, and begin drinking after work. Eventually, your wife will file for a divorce. Your kids will grow up without a decent father figure, since your wife is now scarred and mistrustful of all men. Your kids become bitter teenagers, hate you, and grow up to be abusive, deadbeat parents.

You, meanwhile, hook up with a failed stripper, and have to support her drug habit with what is left after alimony and child support. After you show up to work drunk the 4th day in a row, you get fired. You can't find another job because you're basically a bum now. Your girlfriend OD's, you're on the street broke because you can't pay the rent.

Alternatively, you can just keep your dirtly little secret to yourself. No one's ever going to find out. You may feel a little guilt every now and then, but hey, you're still a lot happier than the alternative, and your family is continuing in blissful ignorance.

What was the ethical choice there?

Jeff250 wrote:

Paul wrote:The difference is that if you only think there might be a God, then there may not be a God. And if there is no God, there's nothing on which to firmly establish your moral system.

What you think has no bearing on whether or not there actually is a God. Regardless of whether you think that there is a God or merely suppose that there may be a God, the possibility that God does not exist still remains. I'll ask again for redundancy: In the context of ethics and authority, how is it different to think that God agrees with you than to think that if there was a God he would agree with you?

I'll try to reply somewhat differently, this time.

If you merely think that God would agree with you if he existed, on what are you basing that belief? What if an insane man believed God would agree with him for killing a bunch of people?

Now, what is it that you think is so great about happiness?

Kilarin wrote:But the point was, you said that Christians were only interested in doing good for a reward, or to avoid punishment. The carrot and stick idea. Huck could NOT have been acting in his own self interest.

First of all, I think that to a certain extent, it's vain to try to analyze the "true" motivations of an only fictional character. That said, I can't remember the specifics of the story. However, I can say that mental reward is often reward enough. What I'm talking about is the feel-good feeling that you experience after doing something nice. The reward doesn't have to be a Chevrolet Corvette in heaven or status on earth. It can be your own peace of mind, which, personally, is probably the best reward that there is.

However, if you're just going to define the character such that he acted out of purely altruistic intentions though, then you're not leaving me any room.

Kilarin wrote:Your list of "motivations" contains items that fit into two categories. Enlightened self interest, and ignorance. If we eliminate the hope of future reward and fame, then nothing is left to motivate our "hero" except ignorance. If I am understanding your stance correctly, the only reason to trade his life for the girls in this situation is that he is simply too dumb to realize that he shouldn't do it. A real Darwin award nominee.

Yes, if you rule out survival, fame, and an afterlife, then you've crafted a story such that the man would have to act out of duty to jump into the bullet.

Would this necessarily be irrational? Not necessarily so. I think that it just depends how the man identifies himself. If he identifies his being as solely himself, then it would seem irrational. If he identifies his being as himself and his progeny and this girl happened to be one of his progeny, then it could be completely rational. If he identifies his being as a part of a whole mankind, then it could be perfectly rational.

Kilarin wrote:Ah, but I CAN assume the ethical system, because I'm arguing that ethics come from an external, absolute, transcendent source. My argument is "from authority". You've got to defend it without the authority. Very Happy So yes, my answer is "because it is the right thing to do". Even if I get NO benefit out of it whatsoever. Not that I actually act that unselfishly, but yes, I do believe that we should.

You're going to have to further explain how reading a text that alleges to be written by God allows you to assume that everything in it is correct, because it's not immedietely jumping out to me.

edit: See below.

Paul wrote:What was the ethical choice there?

Well, first of all, you've loaded the question. Second of all, I'm not even sure what you're asking. But most importantly, I'm not personally advocating one system of ethics over another. I'm just showing that one can exist. I don't feel that it's my responsibility to reconcile how one of its conclusions might not sit right with you.

Paul wrote:If you merely think that God would agree with you if he existed, on what are you basing that belief?

God is defined as an all-benevolent and all-intelligent being. Thus, surely if there were a way to provide the best existence for his people, he would know that it were best and he would want it to be advocated. That seems to make sense to me at least. What do you think?

Paul wrote:Now, what is it that you think is so great about happiness?

Well, try to name something that you would prefer to have than happiness that you wouldn't like because of its contribution to your happiness (either now or long term).

Jeff250 wrote:Well, first of all, you've loaded the question.

Indeed. And I have taken note that you have not answered.

Jeff250 wrote:Second of all, I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Ah, perhaps that is why you didn't answer. The question is: is the ethical action to tell your wife you cheated on her (the consequences of which may include your family falling apart), or to keep it secret from her and let her continue to think you've always been faithful (guaranteeing familial happiness).

Jeff250 wrote:But most importantly, I'm not personally advocating one system of ethics over another. I'm just showing that one can exist.

I had been under the impression that you were advocating a particular view of ethics. I agree that many systems can exist, and even conflict. I would argue, however, that where there is conflict only one system can be right.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't feel that it's my responsibility to reconcile how one of its conclusions might not sit right with you.

Hmm, that might make this argument difficult, if you won't argue.

Jeff250 wrote:

Paul wrote:If you merely think that God would agree with you if he existed, on what are you basing that belief?

God is defined as an all-benevolent and all-intelligent being. Thus, surely if there were a way to provide the best existence for his people, he would know that it were best and he would want it to be advocated. That seems to make sense to me at least. What do you think?

So, if you think God would agree with you, and you believe God would agree with what is best (which seems likely), you most also believe that you know best.

I think, like you, that God would want what is best for people. However, I have trouble believing that he and I would agree on all points, since I am but a human being incapable of perfect understanding. But, I believe God would still be right, making me therefore wrong.

Basically, I'm trying to see if happiness can be used as a universal value. What ethical consequences might result from that aren't really that important to me at the moment. Besides, any knee-jerk reaction (I wouldn't call them conflicts) to any of the consequences might only be because you were raised in one ethical system rather than another. BTW, I edited another response to my last reply, but due to your quick response, you may not have noticed it.

Lothar wrote:

Duper wrote:so the ten commandments and the whole of Leviticus is bunk?

Nope.

The ten commandments, the whole of Leviticus, and so on, is *meant to teach*. Doesn't mean it's bunk, just means it's not meant to be treated as a legal code for all time. It was meant to teach people what God is like and what God values, and show us we don't live up to God's standards, in order to draw us toward Christ. (Read through Galatians, and pay attention to how 3:24 flows with the rest of the book.)

Ok, first off, I apologize for being a bit cheeky. Second, I guess I decided to write my own translattion. there is no "thou shall not lie".. oh brother.. do I need to reread Exodus. The closest it gets to that idea is:

Ex 20:16 wrote:"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

so it goes back to what Kilrain said: "Love your neighbor as yourself." I do understand what you're saying though. I think that making a statement like "There are no moral absolutes" is a bit dangerous. Not because, you aren't right, but because not everyone (or most for that matter) understand the technicality of which you premiss that, but would rather claim a more general understanding of such a statement. As in: "it's ok to do whatever you feel because morality is subjective" rather than "wisdom and discernment need to be used when appling extreme moral principles in our lives." ..those are both extreme statements, but I want to make myself clear.

God didn't favor Rahab for lieing, but rather for protecting children of Isreal. As for murder, it's described as "lying in wait". It's a planned, unjust killing of someone. (A "just killing", I would assume, would be an execution or killing in a war). While manslaughter, or the unintentional slaying of a person or animal(someone's property i.e. livestock), was not approved of, there was provision for such incidents in the Law that provided leniency for the individual.

Thanks for answering my questions of whether you would let me date your sons. It was very important to me and you answered it. I was going to come back and quote the section of the civil rights act...race,creed,sex,discrimination...etc.....

I can't do that because I also believe in separation of church and state and it would be hypocrytical of me...more than I already am...to do that. So I respect both of you for not wanting me as a hypothetical daughter-in-law and walk away. Too bad too....I would have made a great one. Yes, I did get just a little emotional reading that, and yes, I'm trying to make you feel as bad as you made me feel.

However, theres a bright side to this and that is Love, like the universe, has no boundaries. We would run away, elope, live a happy life, have a lot of children, and you would be welcome

Bettina

Bettina wrote:Would you allow me to marry him then? I really want to know how you would feel.
...So I respect both of you for not wanting me as a hypothetical daughter-in-law and walk away. Too bad too....I would have made a great one.

I think there has been a misunderstanding here.
In the first place, I should have been clearer in my first message, I would not RECOMMEND to my son that he marry someone with a very different faith base. The choice would be his, and WHOEVER he chooses, whether I recommended them or not, will be accepted into my family as a fully legitimate and fully loved member.

And in the second place, it wasn't about you not being good enough, it was about radically different belief systems. And it was as much about being fair to YOU as to my son. Why on EARTH should you have to live a lie? Why should you have to attend church and pretend to everyone that you believe when you don't. YOU shouldn't have to do that, not even to please my son. I'm not questioning the choice you have made now, as a minor, trying to keep your father happy. As I've said before, I understand your motivation there. I'm questioning a choice you would make as an adult, a choice that would trap you in this situation for the rest of your life. And no, I could not recommend that to EITHER of you. As I said, IF my son made such a choice, I would accept his bride as if she were my own daughter. But accepting a choice that has been made and RECOMMENDING that choice are two different things.

You mention race, and I'd just like to clarify that race would NOT be an issue. The issue is finding someone who is compatible with your beliefs and goals, whatever their skin color or background. And THAT is what choosing a marriage partner is all about. The young often say, "Love Conquers all", and I believe that is true. People have been stuck in arranged marriages with partners they never chose and never would have. AND, with enough dedication and sweat, they CAN make it work. But why on earth saddle yourself with something like that if you don't HAVE to?! Infatuation is a passing thing. Love is a CHOICE. You are lucky enough to live in a society where you HAVE a choice in marriage partners, use that choice to pick someone with whom you really want to live the rest of your life, not only because you have the hots for each other, but because you have compatible beliefs and goals in life. Too many young people today pick a mate because their gonads make them think they are "in love". A few years later they realize that they are living with someone who is headed in a completely different direction then they are and being "in love" just isn't enough to hold the marriage together anymore. Being "in love" is a feeling that comes and goes, loving someone is a choice that can last forever. I think you are too smart to let yourself get trapped by confusing the too.

Kilarin wrote:I'm trying to make you feel as bad as you made me feel

I'm terribly sorry, making you feel bad was certainly not my intention. I have very good female friends whom I would NEVER marry, even though they are of the same faith as I. They are good people, and good friends, but we wouldn't be compatible in a marriage. I've never considered that an insult. For example, my brother has a personality thats much like my wife's. Kind of quiet and serious. My sister-in-law has a personality thats much more like mine, outgoing and NOISY. Whever we go somewhere as a family, almost immediatly my sister-in-law and I run ahead together to do something silly and my brother and my wife end up walking behind shaking their heads and pretending they don't know us. My parents, somewhat confused by this behavior, once asked if we had all married the wrong people. The instant answer was four very loud, simultaneous shouts of "NO!" I like my sister-in-law, she's a VERY good friend, but we are TOO MUCH alike to be married. Same with my brother and my wife, way to similiar in personalities to get along well if they had to live in the same house. Saying that someone is not a good choice for a marriage is NOT saying they are a bad person in any way shape or form.

Bettina wrote:We would run away, elope, live a happy life, have a lot of children, and you would be welcome

What if he doesn't WANT lots of kids? Just one more "life path" choices you would have to consider. And I DO approve of eloping, saves no END of trouble and expense. But I'm glad I would be welcome at this hypothetical home, as you would be welcome in mine.

(Now I'm curious if my hypothetical grandkids will get their singing voice from YOUR side of the family (lets hope) or my sons (lets hope NOT!). This conversation IS a bit odd, to say the least)

Kilarin wrote:Ah, but I CAN assume the ethical system, because I'm arguing that ethics come from an external, absolute, transcendent source. My argument is "from authority".

Jeff250 wrote:You're going to have to further explain how reading a text that alleges to be written by God allows you to assume that everything in it is correct, because it's not immediately jumping out to me.

I haven't been clear. Sorry. I'm not trying to argue that my ethics are correct, thats impossible, like the definition of the point and the line, either you accept them or you don't. My point is that my ethics are based on authority. The REASON behind them is really much more complicated, but yes, it boils down to "God made it so, because He IS so".
So my ethics HAVE a reason, a basis. That basis may be right or wrong, but it is a REASON.

If you don't believe in any such "authority" behind ethics, then you have to come up with a REASON for why you "ought" to do something. You HAVE come up with many reasons for ethics, BUT, they all boil down to, I should make others happy because, in some fashion or another, it makes ME happy. If it didn't, there wouldn't be any reason to do it.

As I said before, it is a self consistent position. But it means that Osama BenLaden isn't WRONG, he's just getting in the way of your happiness.

Jeff250 wrote:Basically, I'm trying to see if happiness can be used as a universal value. What ethical consequences might result from that aren't really that important to me at the moment. Besides, any knee-jerk reaction (I wouldn't call them conflicts) to any of the consequences might only be because you were raised in one ethical system rather than another. BTW, I edited another response to my last reply, but due to your quick response, you may not have noticed it.

I think people are universally capable of happiness... but that doesn't necessarily mean that happiness should be the standard by which everything is measured.

Different things make different people happy. Some people have fetishes that you and I might consider bizarre, or might even make us unhappy. Who, then, is right?

Jeff250 wrote:Well, try to name something that you would prefer to have than happiness that you wouldn't like because of its contribution to your happiness (either now or long term).

Personal responsibility.

If I make a mistake, I admit it and take responsibility. The consequences may contribute negatively to my happiness, but it's the right thing to do.

Bet51987 wrote:Thanks for answering my questions of whether you would let me date your sons. It was very important to me and you answered it. I was going to come back and quote the section of the civil rights act...race,creed,sex,discrimination...etc.....

I can't do that because I also believe in separation of church and state and it would be hypocrytical of me...more than I already am...to do that. So I respect both of you for not wanting me as a hypothetical daughter-in-law and walk away. Too bad too....I would have made a great one. Yes, I did get just a little emotional reading that, and yes, I'm trying to make you feel as bad as you made me feel.

However, theres a bright side to this and that is Love, like the universe, has no boundaries. We would run away, elope, live a happy life, have a lot of children, and you would be welcome

Bettina

I'm sorry I made you feel bad. I did not intend my response to insult you, just to let you know what I believe.

I think you're a nice girl, and would be fun to be around. But, I believe those are not the most important things to look for in marriage. Marriage is a major commitment, not something to be taken lightly. You said that you would pretend to be a Christian and raise your kids that way, but I don't think living a lie and lying to your kids is very healthy.

Bet51987 wrote:would you let me go out with your son?

If I had one of the right age, and he made the decision to date you, then yes. But I would recommend to him not to marry you, and I would recommend to you not to marry him, if I thought your beliefs were too different for you to be able to really be happy together. If you'd have to lie to each other or to your kids, or if one of you would have to lie to the other's friends or family or church, or if one of you would have to lie to yourself, that wouldn't be cool.

Jeff250 wrote:Basically, I'm trying to see if happiness can be used as a universal value.

In theory, given enough cleverness and enough time, I could convince everybody in the world to use "Lothar's happiness" as a universal value. Or I could convince them to use "increasing the total number of blue objects" as a universal value. There's nothing that logically precludes either of those as being used as a universal value. But simply being *usable* is not an interesting question, IMO.

What interests me is the question of whether there's actual *reason* for any of those to be treated as a universal value on which to base our morals and ethics. Not simply "could they be", but "should they be"...

I can see plenty of reason for "my happiness" or "my family's happiness" or "my culture's happiness" to be used as a PERSONAL or CULTURAL basis for morality, because I and my culture value happiness. But, given a (possibly hypothetical) culture that didn't value happiness, or that didn't value happiness for certain people, or that valued happiness but not as much as they valued something else, I don't see any basis on which I could say of that culture "they are wrong for not valuing happiness like we do." The Nazis most certainly valued their own happiness, but they didn't value the Jews' happiness; on what basis could someone from another culture say to them "your culture is wrong"?

My whole point here is that we all agree we *can* look at the Nazis and conclude their values were wrong. We *can* look at other people and say they value the wrong things. And in order to do that, there has to exist a real, transcendent, authoritative source of values. (Such a source deserves the label "God" regardless of how similar or dissimilar it happens to be to the form of God you or I believe in.)

The question of how you would *explain* right and wrong to a society with no concept of God is irrelevant (though easy to answer -- develop the value system and the idea of a transcendent authoritative source of values however you can.) Again, I'm not talking about how to convince people, I'm asking about what actually *is*. Similarly, the question of how the ethics benefit us is irrelevant; I'm not asking what good they are, I'm asking where they come from (though I agree that overall happiness is one of the things God values, and therefore, is part of what we should consider when making ethical decisions.)

Duper wrote:I think that making a statement like "There are no moral absolutes" is a bit dangerous. Not because, you aren't right, but because not everyone (or most for that matter) understand the technicality...

I agree, it's a dangerous statement. But a statement being *dangerous* doens't make it untrue, it just means it needs to be carefully explained. I hope I've done that to the satisfaction of everyone involved.

God didn't favor Rahab for lieing, but rather for protecting children of Isreal.

But she did *lie* in order to protect them, and that's the point I'm trying to make. God values truth, and God values people. At that particular moment, "giving true information to the city guards" was significantly less valuable than "keeping those people alive", so Rahab did the right thing by lying. It's not just that her lie was an acceptable sin, or a sin covered by God's grace, or even neutral... it was *RIGHT* for her to lie.

That's something a lot of people have trouble getting their brains around, I think because we have the wrong idea of where morals and ethics come from. Morals and ethics don't come from the fact that God commanded a particular thing; morals and ethics come from the fact that God *values* a particular thing, and the commandment is just a demonstration of the underlying value.

As for murder, it's described as "lying in wait".

I can't find anyplace where the Hebrew word for "murder" used in the Ten Commandments is elsewhere used in a sentence about "lying in wait" (Psalms 10:8 uses a different Hebrew word.) The Ten Commandments word most definitely is used sometimes to describe intentional murder, but it's also used to describe unintentional killing.

You're right that the Law had provisions for both forms -- intentional and unintentional killing. My point is that the Ten Commandments uses a word that can mean either. To expand the point (perhaps back to the question that started us down that path): I didn't see any place in which the Ten Commandments word was used to describe killing someone from an opposing army; other Hebrew words were used in those cases.

Of course, a lot of this is predicated on me seeing or not seeing things. My research may not have been 100% complete; I may have missed some things.

Kilarin wrote:But I'm glad I would be welcome at this hypothetical home, as you would be welcome in mine.

Thank you very very much....That made me feel good again.

Bettina

Lothar wrote:What interests me is the question of whether there's actual *reason* for any of those to be treated as a universal value on which to base our morals and ethics. Not simply "could they be", but "should they be"...

I'm going to have to give this all more thought.