Assume for a moment there is no God...

[templelady]

I just realized. This is a topic that is going to round and round with no resolution in sight.

Resolution?

I wasn't aware we we supposed to resolve anything--my understanding was that this was an exchange of different viewpoints. As for resolving --I doubt we can resolve the question of whether there is God or not or whether He is worthy of worship, or whether he is moral, to the satisfaction of all who post here nor am I trying to.

I hold fast to my testimony that there is a God who is the Father of us all who is infinitely loving and accepting, infinitely moral, and infinitely just--and know he is the object of my adoration, reverence and obedience.

[CM]

yes...pick and choose Garth

i didn't see much to choose from

perhaps there is more then meets the eye

if one chooses to look further

[lindyhopper]

I was going to stop with this thread, but I can't let this pass.

TL wrote:

And while we are on the subject of Morality--

If there is no God-no eternity-no afterlife why morality?

I mean morality isn't necessary for survival

In fact a pretty good case can be made that the "me and Mine" philosophy is far better for survival

Make sure you have the best of everything in abundance-- so that your societal group has the best chance to survive and reproduce.

Morality, in fact often is contraindicated if your concern is the best life for yourself and your societal group

Worrying about others outside your group having enough takes valuable time and resources away from fortifying your position and making sure you have not only adequate but more than adequate goods for you to live the life you desire and need.

Morality by its very nature calls for sacrifice. Sacrifice for those outside the group is wasteful not to mention often dangerous in the long run. So "morality would be best confined to parameters of what ever social group you espouse.

Oh-- that's exactly the problem you have with God

Statements like this quite frankly scare me. To think that without God morals are obselete is very scary.

Morals are absolutely necessary for survival. In fact that is why we have them and in my opinion is why we have an idea of god...not only as an answer to the unknown but as an all seeing eye or eyes who enforce moral neglect and reward their adherance.

It seems that the best way for us humans, with one foot in rational cognition and the other in animalistic reactiveness, need bounderies and rules (morals) to coexist with eachother. Even with your example of a society which has it's best interests in mind still requires morals within that society to function and prosper. Still your example isn't true.

Throughout history you see that societies are never completely self sufficient, they need things that are not available in their neck of the woods, especially if we are talking about "abundance" of anything, and interaction is inevitable. So trade is necessary and since you don't trade with your enemies you need to have a standard of how to interact with other groups. The better you are at this, the better you are at surviving in the long run. The more enemies you make the worse off you are and the less likely you are to survive.

As long as we have been somewhat small and week in comparison to predators we have needed eachother for survival, both in terms of protection and in terms of sustenance. So since we have needed eachother, we then need reasons not to kill eachother, the one main reason being that your survival depended on it. As interaction became more complex, so did the rules of interaction or morals. This requires comprimise or sacrifice as you put it.

You spoke of needing to fortify yourself to secure your position to secure your more than adequate goods etc. This is absolutely the worst way of ensuring your survival. See above for better ideas. Of course you need some fortification but it can multipy by making allies. As allies last longer and longer a trust is developed and respect and a genuine care for them. As people are exposed more and more to other cultures and other people by way of honest alliances awareness of the value of life is enriched.

This is all a very wuick outline, but you get the point. All this indicates that you need morals for survival.

And YES! this is all born out of the "me and mine" concept. Which gets back to my ideas on selfishness and why it is not a bad thing. That is selfishness with a long term view. Your example IMO is more of a "short sighted selfishness" which generally ticks people off and does not have the intended benefit to the person or group in the long run.

So in short that is NOT the problem I have with the idea of God or a god. Not at all.

Edited January 26, 2006 by lindyhopper

[templelady]

Throughout history you see that societies are never completely self sufficient, they need things that are not available in their neck of the woods, especially if we are talking about "abundance" of anything, and interaction is inevitable. So trade is necessary and since you don't trade with your enemies you need to have a standard of how to interact with other groups. The better you are at this, the better you are at surviving in the long run. The more enemies you make the worse off you are and the less likely you are to survive.

This is still a moral stance to support a societal group. The moral stance derives from the need for that group to survive.

God driven morality derives from the need to conform to a higher standard

1-The standard of feeding your enemy when he is without

2-Sheltering the sttrnager when they provide nothing to the betterment or function of the group

3-Doing with out material comforts OR needs so than others outside the group can survive

These things would not be viewed as either necessary or needful under a society without God if they were conceived of at all

[LG]

You miss a few motivators that need not be theistically based, templelady, including empathy.

Edited January 28, 2006 by LG

[templelady]

Of what use is empathy for your enemy in a society which views only the here of value?

When You take God from the equation that is what you have --The here --There is no guarantee of tomorrow and there is no life after death--So what you do on this earth carries no consequences beyond what the societal group values.

Non-believers point to the fact they have empathy, love, concern etc for those not of their group. But that is only because society as a whole is theistic (of one kind or another) and the values of said society are based on a theistic foundation.

If, as the original question was posed, "Assume there is no God" I submit that these concepts in relationship to those outside the group never would have evolved because it would not be necessary for the societal group--in fact it would be antithecal to that group's survival. It is only by looking at our enemy as God ( however you conceive Him/her) looks that we develop those attitudes toward said enemy

Edited January 28, 2006 by templelady

[LG]

Of what use is empathy for your enemy in a society which views only the here of value?

First, nobody said anything about empathy for a specific person or group but rather, epathy as a quality, being only one of many qualities that motivate cooperation among people, whether within local societies or across local societal boundaries. Those qualities lead both individuals and societies (from groups of two or a few through various local societies to the worldwide community) to adopt standards (moral codes, local customs and laws, international conventions, etc.).

Second, no normal person or society of which I am aware "views only the here of value." Even thinking from the most selfish, non-theistic basis I can imagine, normal people recognize, for example, that in their older years or in all sorts of possible future times of trouble, they will need the assistance of others, and will likely see the value in cultivating relationships that maximixe the liklihood that others will lend such assistance when it is needed. It doesn't take a theist to realize that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" promotes both short term cooperation and long term relationships that tend to maximize the possibility that others will offer assistance when needed in the future.

When You take God from the equation that is what you have --The here --There is no guarantee of tomorrow and there is no life after death--So what you do on this earth carries no consequences beyond what the societal group values.

Taking God from "the equation" doesn't necessarily negate the possibility of some sort of existence beyond physical death but if we accept that it does, that still doesn't limit consideration to the here or the now, nor does it limit societal concerns to one's own society. People live for decades, move about within societies and among societies, and even if they remain relatively stationary within a society, both affect and are affected by societies other than their own. Whether or not they recognize a deity, most people recognize that their actions as individuals and the actions of the groups to which they belong will affect their future wellbeing, so even the most selfish of normal people will tend to adopt and promote individual and group standards of behavior that they deem likely to positively affect future conditions.

Non-believers point to the fact they have empathy, love, concern etc for those not of their group. But that is only because society as a whole is theistic (of one kind or another) and the values of said society are based on a theistic foundation.

Have you ever observed animals? They seem not to be theistic but still demonstrate, to at least some degree, qualities you seem to think would be impossible for humans in a non-theistic society.

If, as the original question was posed, "Assume there is no God" I submit that these concepts in relationship to those outside the group never would have evolved because it would not be necessary for the societal group--in fact it would be antithecal to that group's survival.

Antithetical? Hardly. Cooperation among groups promotes the survival and wellbeing of all groups involved.

Edited January 28, 2006 by LG

[Oakspear]

Non-believers point to the fact they have empathy, love, concern etc for those not of their group. But that is only because society as a whole is theistic (of one kind or another) and the values of said society are based on a theistic foundation.

If you are talking about western society, I might agree with you. Christianity is the dominant philosophy in the west, and it was preceeded by various forms of paganism, also theistic.

Not all "major" religions, however, are theistic. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, for example, do not have a god or gods, and are the basis for large segments of world society.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Oakspear

[Cynic]

The following quoted material is from "Covenant Theology and Old Testament Ethics: Meredith Kline's Intrusion Ethics," by Jeong Koo Jeon, which appears at http://www.kerux.com/documents/keruxv16n1a1.htm

According to this interesting piece, Kline has maintained that Israel's theocracy was a unique type and "intrusion" of the eschatological Kingdom into an age in which God was (and is) more generally delaying his judgment of men. In other words, judgments that were to be applied to those among and around Israel who did not give the Lord God appropriate honor were representative of the presently delayed eschatological judgment with which God will act towards the reprobate.

I have replaced the author's block quotes with italicized text enclosed within quotation marks.

C. Intrusion of Eschatological Curse

The covenant community of the Israelites entered into the land promised to Abraham by the oath of God (Gen. 15). In the process of the conquest of Canaan, however, there was an ethical problem which puzzles average readers of the episode. Kline asks a question: How can we justify "the Israelite dispossession and extermination of the Canaanites over against the sixth and eighth words of the Decalogue?" To resolve this ethical problem, Kline suggests that we have to distinguish between normal or common grace war and holy war. Kline describes common grace war as follows.

"The function of the ordinary state when, acting through its officers against criminals or through its military forces against offending nations, it destroys life and exacts reparations. The proper performance of this function is not a violation but a fulfillment of the provisions of common grace. For in God's dealing with mankind in common grace he has authorized the state as 'an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.'34 "

However, the common grace war justified by God in international relationships, Kline argues, cannot explain the total destruction involved in the war between the Israelites and Canaanites during the conquest. The conquest of Canaan by the Israelites "before an assembly of nations acting according to the provisions of common grace" would not be justified as "an unprovoked aggression." Furthermore, the conquest violated the basic requirement to show mercy "even in the proper execution of justice."35

Thus, Kline argues that the conquest of Canaan was not a common grace war but a holy war which is an anticipation of eschatological judgment. God's command to the Israelites was clear not to make covenant with Canaanites, and show mercy to them during the conquest (cf. Ex. 23:22-33; 34:10-16; Deut. 7:1-10; 20:10-18). The holy war was the war of "total destruction" (cherem). Achan, who preserved some of "devoted things" against God's command, provoked God, and the Israelites could not defeat Ai until Achan and all the devoted things were destroyed (Josh. 7-8). When the covenant community showed mercy, making covenant with Canaanites in the midst of conquest, God rebuked them, pouring out covenant curses upon them (Jdg. 2).

It is clear that the conquest of Canaan was a type of eternal judgment which is a vivid manifestation of the eschatological curse. In short, there was an eschatological realism presented in the history of Israel. From the redemptive historical point of view, we must recognize, argues Kline, that the requirements of ordinary ethics were abrogated temporarily and "the ethical principles of the last judgment" were introduced such that God's promises and commands to the covenant community of Israel in respect to Canaan and the Canaanites became their own. Kline goes on to say: "Only so can the conquest be justified and seen as it was in truth not murder, but the hosts of the Almighty visiting upon the rebels against his righteous throne their just deserts—not robbery, but the meek inheriting the earth."36

Kline further shows that the dispossession of the Canaanites by the Israelites during the conquest (also involving the temporary abrogation of the eighth commandment) was also related to the tenth commandment. According to Kline, the violation of the eighth and tenth commandments through the conquest was not sin because the neighbor concept under common grace was abrogated by God's command, intruding the neighbor concept of eschatological judgment.

Must we not, then, also regard the Hebrew man of faith engaged in the conquest as coveting the land of the Canaanites, at least to the degree that he was obeying God's battle charge from his heart and with understanding? Though that would ordinarily be to sin against one who was his neighbor, this was one of the instances where the neighbor concept operative under common grace was abrogated by divine ordering in favor of the neighbor concept of the final judgment and beyond, according to which God's enemies are not the elect's neighbors.37

The apparent violation of the tenth commandment by the covenant community through God's command, Kline argues, was an intrusion principle which had the divine purpose of establishing and maintaining the theocratic kingdom as a type of the eternal kingdom: "When the Old Testament believer, at the Lord's command, took his typical stand beyond common grace, to covet the property of the unbeliever was to be in harmony with God's purpose to perfect his kingdom."38

Kline traces the Psalms and finds imprecations in Psalms 7; 35; 55; 59; 69; 79; 109 and 137. The imprecations by covenant people such as David and Asaph are troublesome for many who face cruel elements of prayer and song against their enemies in the name of God. In the beatitudes, Jesus explains the attitude of the covenant community to their neighbor and enemy under the Old Covenant saying "love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (Matt. 5:43; cf. Lev. 19:18 and Deut. 23:6). However, he proclaims a radical new approach to his followers under the New Covenant, commanding "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44; cf. Lk. 6:27-38). This apparent contradiction creates difficulty for Bible readers and interpreters. Kline argues that the best solution to this problem is to understand the imprecations from the perspective of redemptive history and eschatology.

"Normally the believer's attitudes toward the unbeliever are conditioned by the principle of common grace. During the historical process of differentiation which common grace makes possible, before the secret election of God is unmistakably manifested at the great white throne, the servants of Christ are bound by his charge to pray for the good of those who despitefully use and persecute them. Our Lord rebuked the Boanerges when they contemplated consuming the Samaritans with fire from heaven (Luke 9:54; cf. Mark 3:17). We may not seek to destroy those for whom, perchance, Christ has died.

"But in the final judgment the Lord will not rebuke James and John if they make similar requests. Then it will be altogether becoming for the saint to desire God's wrath to descend upon his unbelieving enemy. No longer will there be the possibility that the enemy of the saint is the elect of God. Then the grain harvest will be ripe for the gathering of the Son of Man and the clusters of the vine will be fully ripe for the great winepress of the wrath of God.39"

As such, Kline understands the imprecations in the Psalms as the intrusive phenomena of the ethics of eschatological consummation, which is sharply different from regular ethics under the principle of common grace. So, he suggests that we have to distinguish the consummation ethics from common grace ethics because "the imprecations in the Psalms" are the unusual pattern of ethical conduct which informs "the ethics of the consummation." The intrusion by divine inspiration constitutes "a divine abrogation, within a limited sphere, of the ethical requirements normally in force during the course of common grace."40

Furthermore, Kline argues that the imprecations in the Psalms inspired by the Spirit of God were conducted within the typological kingdom of Israel which is the type and intrusion of the eternal kingdom. Therefore redemptive historical interpretation of the imprecations is a concrete hermeneutical principle which ought to be applied.41

Kline argues that ethical anticipation of the eschatological judgment of the reprobate is seen in the examples of Old Testament history "involving all the rest of commandments five through ten, excepting the seventh." The seventh commandment could not be altered in redemptive history. The reason, argues Kline, is explained by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. It is especially because "every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body"(1 Cor. 6:18).42

Edited January 29, 2006 by Cynic

[templelady]

Antithetical? Hardly. Cooperation among groups promotes the survival and well being of all groups involved

If they are cooperating they aren't enemies

All you have done is prove my point

"morality" when separated from God, only applies to those who are, if not friends , at least not enemies.

If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"??

"love thy enemies" "do good to them that persecute you" -which is where true morality starts, is not a concept that is entertained by societal groups with no concept of something beyond this earthly plane.

And while Buddhism , and many Eastern religions do not have a supreme deity they do have lesser deities and ancestor worship. They recognize a force greater than the sum total of man.

[Oakspear]

And while Buddhism , and many Eastern religions do not have a supreme deity they do have lesser deities and ancestor worship. They recognize a force greater than the sum total of man.

Buddhism in it's original form did not. Many Buddhists in Japan, where it was influenced and combined with Shinto, recognize a pantheon. Some Taoists also believe in gods, but the main body of Taoism recognizes an impersonal force (The Tao, or Way). Confucianism is a philosophy that advocates obedience to duly constituted authority. No gods needed. Edited January 29, 2006 by Oakspear

[Oakspear]

If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"??

Theists behave pretty much the same as non-theists in this regard.

[Oakspear]

...and Templelady, are you suggesting that all theist societies, even non-Christian ones, are blessed by morality and ethics because they "have god(s) in the equation"?

[LG]

If they are cooperating they aren't enemies

How in the heck do you think that enemies declare truces, engage in treaties, and sometimes even move from being enemies to being allies?

If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"??

As Oakspear already pointed out, theists and non-theists act similarly in such situations. Both defend themselves with deadly force if they deem it necessary and both act in nonviolent manners, including offering concessions to those with competing interests, if they deem that to be appropriate.

"love thy enemies" "do good to them that persecute you" -which is where true morality starts, is not a concept that is entertained by societal groups with no concept of something beyond this earthly plane.

And you know this how? The answer is, you don't. Those concepts, with limitations that almost all theists acknowledge and practice, are pretty basic to interpersonal relations, getting along with other people. They're not dependent upon belief in a supernatural "plane," nor a belief in life after physical death.

And while Buddhism , and many Eastern religions do not have a supreme deity they do have lesser deities and ancestor worship. They recognize a force greater than the sum total of man.

Every sane person recognizes "a force greater than the sum total of man." That is not a theistic concept. Personifying such forces is.

[Oakspear]

We're not talking about doubts, questions or proof here in the OT we are talking about people who knew the answer to the question, knew about God, had the proofs and CHOSE TO DISOBEY ANYWAY.

A far different cry from the picture some here would paint -namely a group of "innocents" who knew nothing and were just merrily going about their lives when ---BAM

If in fact the case were the latter I would be forced to agree that God was unjust--but since we are talking about the former -- while the consequences were deadly they were in no way unexpected ---except in the sense that those who chose to disobey probably disobeyed with the mindset of "oh, it won't happen to me" --

What opportunity did the people of Jericho have to hear about Joshua's god? What "proofs" did they have? What exactly did they disobey?

Not only were the warriors and leaders of Jericho to be killed, but EVERYBODY (excepting Rahab & her family) including infants. The same with many other cities of Canaan. Why? Because they could. Notice that groups like the Philistines were allowed to live...were they just too tough for Joshua's troops?

[Oakspear]

"morality" when separated from God, only applies to those who are, if not friends , at least not enemies.

If the screaming hoard comes over the hill armed to the teeth seeking to possess a water supply do You say "oh, they need water let them have it" or do you say "to arms, to arms the enemy is upon us"??

"love thy enemies" "do good to them that persecute you" -which is where true morality starts, is not a concept that is entertained by societal groups with no concept of something beyond this earthly plane.

Wasn't too much enemy-lovin' going on in Canaan's happy land, eh?

[GarthP2000]

Oakspear,

Wasn't too much enemy-lovin' going on in Canaan's happy land, eh?

See Cynic's very-wordy thesis and 'explanation' (read ((cough))scam) as to why there is no contradiction as such. :unsure:

Yah! And I have some ocean front property in New Knoxville I can sell ya too!

[templelady]

What opportunity did the people of Jericho have to hear about Joshua's god?

They heard about Him from their forefathers who learned it at some point in time from Noah and his family(you know the only people who survived the flood) And Noah learned it from his forefathers who at some point learned it from Adam who learned it from God in the Garden of Eden.

As Oakspear already pointed out, theists and non-theists act similarly in such situations. Both defend themselves with deadly force if they deem it necessary and both act in nonviolent manners, including offering concessions to those with competing interests, if they deem that to be appropriate.

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=defin...G=Google+Search)

That is the morality of man also called situational ethics

The morality of God is universal --and if it were adhered to --not only would you let your enemy have the water -you would give to him in the first place when you noticed his need.

To claim that Theists don't live up to this standard (which almost all don't) as proof that it doesn't exist is not any sort of proof at all

[Oakspear]

They heard about Him from their forefathers who learned it at some point in time from Noah and his family(you know the only people who survived the flood) And Noah learned it from his forefathers who at some point learned it from Adam who learned it from God in the Garden of Eden.

You assume that it was passed down faithfully from Noah's time to Joshua's. An unwarranted assumption at best.

[Oakspear]

Strawman alert! Strawman alert!

The morality of God is universal --and if it were adhered to --not only would you let your enemy have the water -you would give to him in the first place when you noticed his need.

To claim that Theists don't live up to this standard (which almost all don't) as proof that it doesn't exist is not any sort of proof at all

I'm not saying that the morality that you describe doesn't exist, nor am I trying to "prove it".

What is being said is that the belief in a god doesn't guarantee "moral" behavior, nor does atheism preclude it.

Edited January 29, 2006 by Oakspear

[doojable]

Oakspear, I'm confused - and yes this is off topic -

Am I wrong or don't you practice some form of Druidism? I thought that I read that somewhere in a post.

If so - doesn't Druidism believe that all living things have a spirit? I might have my facts wrong but I was lead to believe that fairies were supposed to be the spirits of flowers.....So I'm thinking that there once was some kind of worship involving all these spririts of the woods....

I'm not asking this to put you on the spot - but it seems to me that this is theism in some form. Pan-theism, granted, but theism just the same.

Now if I'm wrong I apologize in advance.

[templelady]

What is being said is that the belief in a god doesn't guarantee "moral" behavior, nor does atheism preclude it.

NO one said belief in God guaranteed or Moral behavior

No one said atheists aren't moral

What is under discussion is whether or not the concept of universal "morality" would ever have existed if not for there being a God.

Being as concerned for your enemies well being as you are for your own and your societal groups well being

making sure that they have everything that they need-regardless of your relationship etc I just don;t see it--as a society we don;t even practice that within our own borders, or our own lives. and that is with a knowledge of God -irregardless if one accepts Him. That isn't even practiced on these boards universally--why? because it isn't natural-

[Oakspear]

NO one said belief in God guaranteed or Moral behavior

No, but you have indicated that moral behavior cannot exist outside of worship of God

No one said atheists aren't moral

No, but you have said that ethical or moral behavior among atheists only exists because they live in a theistic society, or have "heard of" God

What is under discussion is whether or not the concept of universal "morality" would ever have existed if not for there being a God.

Right, and we've given exampples of individuals and societies that do very nicely without a god.

Being as concerned for your enemies well being as you are for your own and your societal groups well being making sure that they have everything that they need-regardless of your relationship etc I just don;t see it--

Is that the only way one can be moral or ethical? Perhaps you don't see it because it falls outside what you have decided you want to believe.

as a society we don;t even practice that within our own borders, or our own lives. and that is with a knowledge of God -irregardless if one accepts Him. That isn't even practiced on these boards universally--why? because it isn't natural-

So, in general, what's the difference in actions between theists and atheists?

[Oakspear]

Oakspear, I'm confused - and yes this is off topic -

Am I wrong or don't you practice some form of Druidism? I thought that I read that somewhere in a post.

If so - doesn't Druidism believe that all living things have a spirit? I might have my facts wrong but I was lead to believe that fairies were supposed to be the spirits of flowers.....So I'm thinking that there once was some kind of worship involving all these spririts of the woods....

I'm not asking this to put you on the spot - but it seems to me that this is theism in some form. Pan-theism, granted, but theism just the same.

Now if I'm wrong I apologize in advance.

Not exactly druidism, but you're close. I'm not an atheist, but I am arguing that atheists can act just as morally and athically as theists.

[doojable]

Ahhhhh - Ok carry on - sorry for the distraction. I have nothing I care to add here. seems like its all been said.