Why follow God and what makes it moral?

Ok, but why should I follow the golden rule, or the commandments let alone God? ps. if the golden rule were the way of God, this would render God himself a total sinner.

By all means do.

Then what was the reason? You need to articulate, or elaborate further.

Because you contend your answer is valid, I wish to show it isnt.

Are you saying all of Christian teaching if simply the Golden rule? I think you should define it first.

 

What if your God is lean on killing abortion doctors? How does fear of such a god, and thus, as you say, fear of going against what appears to be the moral principles of this god, represent a moral advantage?

 

To elaborate the post above, I do not think there's any moral advantage in fearing a moral authority. The simple reason is that fear of a moral authority does not install a fear of going against one's own moral principles but a fear to go against the moral principles of the moral authority. Which makes any action taken due to this fear detrimental to the entire purpose of morality.

It does, however, have a liability advantage.

 

All ethical constructs have their disadvantages.
Machiavelli is a good example. He has an ethical construct. It is self-serving, which is the very point of it. His is the anti-Golden Rule position. To him, power is the ethical goal, which puts him in competition with all others that accept his point of view. Thus, his lack of an external moral authority puts him on a necessary and eternal war footing with all others. If he succeeds, he becomes the moral authority. If not, he becomes a victim. That is how he sees the world.
Is this detrimental to the "purpose of morality"?

 

How uncanny. That is what another poster has stated about the atheists on this forum. It seems that this victim nature of the atheists is becoming more noticeable.

 

Not a response to the post.
The post is about the varied nature of what ethics can be, not what all atheists embrace.

 

Let me restate... If everyone truly feared going against 'sound' moral principles,this is reinforcement not to go against their moral principles,no ?

What if your moral authority was the love of mankind ?

 

Not really how the poster was using the word "authority", I don't think. They are suggesting an external imposition of what should be considered moral, and not an internal "love" that is driving their decisions. It seems to be at the crux of the argument between you.

 

So you cna answer my questions Incorporeal?

 

To be fair to one another.

1st time - http://www.politicalforum.com/4412128-post33.html
2nd time - http://www.politicalforum.com/4413309-post56.html

"Why be a Christian(?)" is based on what an individual believes about God.

To take the name of Christ (profess) is a way to identify your ideology if nothing else.

No. The Golden rule was just an example.

 

Yes, that's what it is, but that;s not what I'm asking. I'm asking WHY SHOULD I BE FAIR TO ANOTHER?

LOL All you said was 'I follow Christian doctrine because I'm a Christian' - completely circular logic that doesn't answer my question.

Yes but objectively, what is the answer. If its just 'individual belief' - ie faith, then there is no answer, its blind hope and ignorance unquestioning devotion.

An example of what?

 

"Morality [...] consequently, why that way is correct."

http://www.politicalforum.com/4473373-post442.html

Seems like you already have this answer megadethfan.

I already gave you that answer too.

 

Jesus Christ. READ CAREFULLY. I am NOT asking what MORALITY IS. I am asking what makes Christianity MORAL. GET IT???? You have answered every other question you could think of but the one I stated in the op!!

 

No, that isn't what Im saying. *sigh*

 

No megadethfan, I am fully aware about what you are asking which is why you are chasing your own tail.

"I'm asking WHY SHOULD I BE FAIR TO ANOTHER?"

I'm out for now.

 

1-no god exists, religious texts are the superstitions and myths of primitive and ignorant people - so,one should not do what any god or gods tell them. ONE, should use their own mind to determine what they should do, not the rantings of long dead people.

2 - nothing makes any gods code of ethics good or bad. They are just the beliefs of long dead people. Once again, people should make up their own mind on ethics, morals and values, based on their own life experiences.

 

You are correct, I find the Golden Rule, which I do not believe is taught in the bible, to be total nonsense. I certainly do not want a masochist "doing unto me".
Hmm, If I were to select one saying from one "religion"as something worth considering, I would select the general guideline of WICCA. ------An it harm none do what ye will.----- That to me is much more valid than the nonsense of Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammad, or any of the leaders of any of the other religions.

If you accept the Christians ethos, then you certainly find the christian teachings to be moral and logical. Since I am not Christian and do not accept their beliefs, I do NOT find them to be either moral or logical.

 

Chess is also challenging, but I have no use for it either.

 

No, it's a reinforcement of acting on the impulse of fear, not of morality.

If you act out of fear then morality, which is basically the notion of right and wrong, has no bearing on your actions. Acting out of fear cancels out moral impulse. Conversely, acting on your own notions of right and wrong cancels out the impulse of fear.

By the way, I'm glad to notice what seems to be your suspicion towards the soundness of the moral principles in question. If you act out of fear of (going against) a moral authority then those principles do indeed become of arbitrary soundness.


What fear of gods do is to settle liability, not morality.

 

Indeed. When morality becomes some sort of external manifestation then it no longer pertains to one's own notions of right and wrong.

 

First of all, look at the terms you are using. "rational", "objective", "reasoning".
Those three terms essentially say that you are going to "make excuses" for "tangibility" and call it "normal thinking". So let me ask you, why would I want to make excuses for what is perceived as tangibility or materiality? Those are already a part of 'normal thinking'.

What makes any other code of ethics "correct"... in fact, what makes anything 'correct'? "Correctness" is subjective not 'objective' so why would you even be speaking about the subjective side of man? So that you can use it as a launch pad to make further attacks against people?

 

What about if you fear going against sound moral principles 'because' you love humanity ? I don't know that we can separate morality and fear,freeware.(consequences on humanity)

How else do we learn morality unless there were consequences and the fear of consequences ?

 

The golden rule is Biblical (fyi) but if you don't want a masochist "doing unto you," then just say no. lol

 

What makes Atheism moral? Or are you going to suggest now that Atheism is not moral or that Atheism does not have a set of moral standards? I have seen others on this forum who claim to be Atheist and also claim that Atheists are more 'moral' than Theists and especially Christians. So how can Atheists be 'more moral' if there is no moral standards by which the Atheists utilize?

 

Why should one "use their own mind" rather than the rantings of long dead people?