Vanialo28 said:
I use the bible as a guide for what is right and wrong rather than someone's personal opinion, or my own. I think God knows waaaaaaay more than you do..
Socrates disposed of this argument 2500 years ago. Read the Euthaphro. If things are good because they're loved by the gods, then they're utterly arbitrary and genocide becomes good on a whim -- in order words, under divine command theory there is no real morality and everything is mere obedience. You might want to teach that to a young child (obey your parents just because), but certainly not to an adult. Anybody who believes in a
benevolent god must necessarily believe that god has good reasons for his judgments. Would not the most pious course of action be to study his judgments to understand the systems behind them?
If the gods have reasons for choosing something as good and something as bad, then anyone who respects those gods should think through the reasons. God gave you the mental faculties to evaluate things. If he'd wanted to toss all the answers in your lap he wouldn't have bothered giving you a brain, and he'd appear on television every night issuing specifics instead of expecting you
derive the rest from a relatively short 2000 year old book.
Morally different? You're either a moral person or you're not, there's no in between. You can use all the euphemisms you'd like but it doesn't alter the truth..
The truth is, just about every single person in the world a few hundred years ago would be morally reprehensible by today's standards. The truth is, what's good in one context can be disastrously bad in another context.
Utilitarianism is the most simplistic, largely accurate guide: what's good is what benefits the collective. This fits the pattern of your god's proclamations fairly well, so don't you think you'd be obeying your religion a lot better if you connected the dots yourself and were able to evaluate situations on your own, instead of waiting around for a divine proclamation on each and every issue you face in your life (which will never come)?
Then for corner cases you can find different answers via Kantian approach, emotivism or the like. Personally I'm a fan of virtue ethics as described by Alasdair Macintyre, in which morality is a personal craft (thus moral worth of a person is judged not directly by the effect on the world, but by their skill at the craft) in which the object is to achieve the archetypal "good life" of the society at issue. This societal good life needs to be grounded in more intersubjective/objective considerations that I won't bore everyone with.
There's also a lot of promise in biological investigations of the nature of morality. If you believe humans are created by god, then you should be interested in how he designed the moral judgment centers of your brain.
If you have no theory for a pattern of god's commandments, then you don't understand what god means by morality whatsoever. Though you may obey the letter of the very most specific proclamations, you ignore the wider point of your religion and are unable to adjust to circumstances.
I'm not attacking anyone or being rude because they have a different opinion so please do the same for me..
You're calling us morally loose and saying the world has gone to hell because of us, and you look forward to our divinely-ordained deaths any day now... if that isn't insulting, nothing is. I have nothing against you, however, I'm only criticizing your manner of reasoning (which isn't reasoning at all, but appeal to somebody else's interpretation of a book). What else do you expect me to do with my philosophy degree if not complain about poor philosophy I encounter?
If you're actually interested in morality, start thinking about it instead of just quoting it. You may continue to believe the exact same moral precepts, but you will actually have
reason to believe them and your faith will just justified and strengthened.