Right. If ethics are the accepted form of conduct, and Hitler killed people and it was socially acceptable, then it was ethical. Then again, it obviously wasn't(isn't?) socially acceptable.
So was it or wasn't it right? I asked for your opinion, is your opinion it was both right and wrong?
Besides, God is also a mass murderer. I'm sure you've come across this claim before. Is there a reason God is excused from his own punishments?
So you believe in God?
Here I was, thinking you're an atheist. Sorry. Since God created all, He has the right to deliver justice. If you look at the instances in the Bible, which I'm sure you can quote, where God delivered justice, it was in His opinion justified, and as a Christian, I accept that. God is fair, but also warns of consequences. It is at your own peril that you don't heed His warnings. Since God is the ultimate judge of right or wrong, who gave us as humans the ability to distinguish between those, we do His will, and serve Him in that way. Those that don't are ultimately judged by Him, not us, and He ultimately punishes, not us. His Word is the foundation of our laws today, and we abide by those, since they were given by Him.
As for God being excused from His own punishment, do you punish yourself if you do something wrong? Also, God is the highest authority, so He can't punish himself. However, the whole argument is moot from a Christian point of view, since God is the ultimate righteous one, whom we trust and love, and He does it right back to us.
Do we sometimes question His motives and judgement? Sure we do, we are inquisitive humans, after all. Do we ever fully understand? No, I don't, nor do I think it's possible to ever fully understand. Sometimes it boils down to faith, and I'm ok with that.
But other primates do have them. Actually, lots of other animals have a... 'code of conduct' that makes it possible to live together. /And/ they're godless. The only explanation is that moral belief and behavior is possible without any divine presentation of them.
Please present your proof, 'just so' statements won't do. I have read quite a few studies on this subject, and they are inconclusive at best. Most are written by either animal activists, who wish to afford animals the same rights as humans, or evolutionists, who wish to make man equal to animals, so as to prove the non-existence of a higher power. The group behavior of animals are dictated by the wish of the strongest, and seldom contributes to every animals welfare. There is absolutely no proof that animals can distinguish right from wrong. If the leader of a baboon troop kills a baby baboon, there is no indication that he knows he did the wrong thing. There are no signs of regret in the animal kingdom in the wild, nor punishment for making a morally wrong choice. Regardless of motive, animals exhibit no empirical evidence of making moral decisions. Hierarchy, communal foraging for food, etc does not constitute moral behavior, merely co-dependence, as can be seen in any ecosystem.
Your explanation hinges on the proof that animals exhibit moral behavior, so until you can show conclusive evidence that animals behave in a moral fashion, the issue of divine intervention is moot.
I'm part of everyone, so if everyone approves, you and I both are either in favor or tolerant towards mass murder. Human feelings of right and wrong don't fall out of thin air.
Sorry P, I don't quite get your point here. How are you "part of everyone"? Are you saying that your morality is determined by what everyone else thinks? Back to Germany, would you have driven the trains to the gas chambers without feeling guilty? I must also ask for more specifics of where you think morals came from? What made the first humans moral? Again, saying merely that it was a survival technique for the purposes of community does not work. That would imply purpose, which by definition no naturalist process can include and thus points to the meta-physical.
Er.. alright. I figured that since you were giving 'ammo' for debate, you would try to avoid non sequiturs. I really would like reasons, though. Besides, what's 'moral law'? Obviously, there isn't any moral code that everyone follows.
You're right, it was a stupid answer. My apologies. To answer this, I need to reverse the order of the question. You are saying that there is obviously not a moral code that everyone follows. Well, there is no place on earth where murder is morally acceptable, or rape, or theft etc. Every society has morals, which remain the same wherever you go. I have travelled deep into rural Africa, where 'jungle justice' is served, with no influence from the outside world, yet the same moral principles were present in those communities. In essence, that is what absolute moral law means, it is the same wherever you go, like 2+2=4. And if you don't believe that every human deep down knows those things are wrong, regardless of environment or convictions, look at the pre-execution repentence of murderers. They are always unhappy and apologetic. There is no reason for them to be apologetic, since it won't make any difference to their fate. Displaying true morality at that point does not save them, yet they still do it. Why? Because they know deep down, inside their innermost being, that they were wrong. That deep conviction of wrong and right cannot be denied, nor explained by any natural process.
So back to my earlier "terribly flawed logic".
We see morality all over the world, and administered in some sort of legal system of laws and punishment. Those laws were put in place by someone, i.e. a law giver or givers. Every law has to have a law giver or creator or author etc, or it simply own't exist. If we then see this absolute moral law, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, which is the same wherever we go, then that has to have a law giver too. Since the ToE states unequivically that naturalism cannot plan for a specific outcome, there has to be an explanation outside of the biological or anthropological. That explanation lies in the book that gave us all our laws in the first place, namely the Bible. Our moral obligations are neatly documented in there, and incidentally forms the basis of all Western law (You know, those things we need to do to live together.
). Since we know that the Bible is historically proven to be a true reflection of what the authors observed and experienced, by virtue of non-Biblical history, and other forensic proof, we also accept that the Bible was written through divine inspiration. That must lead us to believe that the giver of absolute moral law is God, since absolute moral law is documented there and nowhere else, and we see it all over His creation.
Life is worth living for whatever reason I want to live for. It can change. What does my opinion need to be worthy of? I understand that Christians believe their purpose is to live for and to serve God. How is this satisfying?
C'mon P, aren't you being just a little intellectually dishonest here? Your life is not just worth living for 'whatever reason'. Surely you have goals related to your personal life, career etc which stay fairly constant. I would also venture that it includes staying out of jail or off the electric chair as a fairly constant objective. Is it fear that drives you to have those goals? Love? Hate? Greed?
Serving God is immensely satisfying, you should try it sometime.
Serving God brings inner peace, patience and humility. It brings hope and deep satisfaction. It brings huge responsibility, carried out with love. It brings a non-negotiable covenant of everlasting life. It brings enlightenment, an understanding of the deeper purpose of existence, and it brings wisdom.
I encourage you to open your heart and mind, and search for the truth.