Okay so i saw the morality thread but it wasnt about anything its was like a question and this is a topic i would like to discuss.

So please post your thoughts on what "Morality " or being or doing something that's "moral or immoral" means to YOU and why?

Well everyone has their own belief of morality and where it ultimately stems from. However our beliefs has no impact on whether something is true or not. I can't say what is the absolute truth, but what I believe to be true.

Morality is a multifaceted issue. Examples include: Nature vs Nuture etc etc. I personally believe that we all have morality in us innately to a certain extent, to what extent, to be honest I don't know. I also believe that nuture can indeed influence it with upbringing. Now my views to this question would come from a "religious" perspective so it (knowing that most people aren't the same religion as me) would probably not exactly be "right" for you. But I digress, I believe that morality is given by God.

Let's say God did not provide our morality (I.E specifically telling us what to do and what not to do), I don't see how something could actually be "morally wrong" in murdering people and stealing and raping and lying etc etc. I'd like to further explain that I'm basically saying that the basis for morality would not be there without God, in the end, who decides what is actually right or wrong? Some would argue, oh well it's for the benefit of humanity that's where we get morals from. Well even then it doesn't mean it's actually "right", since there is no right or wrong just the fact that things happen and it may be for the benefit or not.

I mean if we were to believe that morality is taught and passed down, what if someone is brought up and being taught that is perfectly fine? Then we shouldn't be allowed to punish them because it's what they believe to be moral.

Either way it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, since I think we all have morality so believing whether God exists or not doesn't really matter, it's just that with God there seems to be moral basis which we can all follow so eh, I guess I'll go with that.

As for when people do something immoral, well everyone does immoral things despite what they believe to be moral, I don't think I can judge them for the end (Which in my belief is heaven/hell) since I myself am pretty terrible :d. I guess I just try my best to be moral not always because I feel like I want to (I mean sometimes we do feel like doing immoral things right?). So, it's important to me because well I guess I do it for God, not because he demands it but because I want to :p.

Morality doesn't exist imo, it just depends on person to person

I couldn't agree more with イサオ and Panther (except that i don't believe in god).
Morality really is just what society deems as right and wrong and even that completely depends on where you're from. Things that are considered morally wrong in the USA are different from the in the middle east standards for example.

>>4 "Things that are considered morally wrong in the USA are different from the in the middle east standards for example" I disagree in the bible there are things that god tells us not to do. things that are morally wrong like being gay for example or having sex with family members. god doesn't care where you're from wrong is wrong.

>>5
A harsh way to put it, but I believe the same. The problem with saying it like that is people will get mad because it's the same as saying they are wrong and they think you are self righteous except they forget that all bleed red (I.E we all sin).

>>4
There's a problem I find with that, in that if that the Middle East has a different right or wrong then we shouldn't be able to judge them for what they do E.G it's okay for honor killings right? It's right to them, why do we look upon them so badly, you shouldn't have the right to do that since for them it's MORAL. As they may look upon your morality as immoral, noone has any standard to judge anyone.

As long as it doesn't bring me a bad result, it's moral. If not, it's immoral

>>6 There are several good reasons to reject Divine Command Theory, though. First, any atheist would obviously reject the notion that God dictates morality. Second, DVT asserts that things are morally wrong solely because God says so. That's because either (1) things would be morally wrong because God says so or (2) God says not to do something because it is morally wrong. If (2) is the case, then things are morally right or wrong independent of God. This leaves (1) as the only position that DVT can hold. That would also mean that rape would be okay if God said "rape is fine now". Furthermore, those odd parts of the Bible (like mixed fabric clothing and eating shrimp being a sin) are definitely wrong if the Bible is trusted as the word of God. These issues give both theists and atheists some adequate justification for rejecting DVT and looking for some basis for morality elsewhere.

Also, your response to >>4 seems to be stuck in a loop of "if it isn't objective, it isn't justified". You said that, if morality is subjective, "we shouldn't be able to judge them for what they do". Sure we can. Saying "we shouldn't" is equivalent to saying "it's wrong to", but there's no objective basis to say that something is wrong. In this case, it's entirely permissible for us to say that your actions conflict with our collective beliefs and therefore we'll try to make the world fit our ideal. If you present an example in which morality is subjective, you can't say "we shouldn't" because that presupposes objectivity (which is a contradiction). The best you can say is "I don't like it", and that's not much of an argument.

For anyone interested, I'd recommend David Hume if you're going to read up on morality. His work is fairly short, it reads well, and it's pretty much just perfect. A decent second choice would be Kant. He hits pretty close to the mark, but his style is also a lot harder to follow.

>>8
Correct, God says it is morally wrong. I believe morality is given by God. Except, God doesn't say "rape is fine now" and hasn't.

Do you have reason for "definitely wrong", or just "because" it's definitely wrong. The Word of God is not a standalone thing either, the eating of the shrimp was already resolved as you know. Old testament law was given to the Isrealites before Christ came, basically TL;DR (If you want an explanation just ask) now we don't have to obey the Old Testament law.

It doesn't mean anything at all, something being wrong and something you believe to be wrong is an entierly different matter:
You may believe it to be wrong, tell it to be wrong, tell someone not to do it because you believe it is wrong. Yet you cannot define that it is "actually" wrong for anyone. Only that you believe it to be wrong for you.

Yes indeed, it is permissible for you to say that my actions conflict with your beliefs and thus I can't tell you you shouldn't ONLY if it is subjective. I don't believe it is. I believe it is objective and from God. Of course if you believe there is no God, then I do not believe that there cannot be objective morality.

>>9 I'll just leave this here. The New Testament isn't free of questionable rules.

>>10
So basically I typed a massive reply for every single point and it went 8700 characters over the limit and didnt post so I copied the bottom half intending to post two parts but it failed, so I only have the bottom half.

I denoted your article quoted with "=" and my answers with ">"

A quick summary of the first few sine I lost said top half, any specific questions to each I'll answer individually so ask away.

1st one refers to how it's better that you don't marry because you could devote fully to God. However, it states that there is no sin in marrying.

2nd one, never says not to go to doctors, but that we should pray for the sick

3rd one, This one is more complex, since the letter was written to the church in Corinth, hence the book of corinthians, and it was about order. It did not only refer to women but also to others such as prophets since the church there did not have order I.E like a noisy classroom with a teacher trying to teach.

4th one is not about wealthy being condemned but it was in reference to actual opressors who were rich and opressing the people at that time, it never states that the wealthy themselves will be condemned. In the end times, wealth means nothing in heaven or hell.

5th, This one was actually in the abolishment of slavery where Onesimus was given back to his master as a "brother" and told to love him as a brother rather than a slave.

6th, 7th all refer to how bad sin actually is and that it is better that you should do that than sinning, it is a depiction of how bad it is. The full verse states that it's better that you lose a member of your body than your whole body being thrown into hell.

8th, that we shouldn't swear falsely If you read the whole chapter not just the verse it makes more sense like all of them.

9th, this one is in relation to "walking the extra mile", again read in context and hopefully you'll understand

10th, same as above, it's from the same chapter.

================
=Do NOT Pray in Public: (Matthew 6:6) Common English Bible
When you pray, go to your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father… in that secret place.

> This one is in relation to boasting. We do not pray outside and purposely boast our faith by saying "Hey look at me I'm praying", or "Hey look at me I donated all my money to charity", for that is boasting. The verse in context is below:

Matthew 6:5-6 ESV
"5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

==========================

=Don’t Save Your Money: (Matthew 6:19) New Living Translation
Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal.

> Hahaha I had a laugh at this one, again referencing to the love for worldy things and how that it won't really matter in the end, to keep our eyes focused on what is important. Not that we shouldn't save money.

==========================

=Don’t Plan for The Future: Matthew 6:34 NASB
So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself.

>Words of encouragement for those feeling down, furthermore whenever you see a bible verse with "So" or "Therefore", you usually know that there is something before that, thus we can see this verse again out of context.

Matthew 6:25-34 ESV
"25 “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[g] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."

As you can see, it's not so much telling us not to prepare for the future, but rather telling us what is important, not the worldy things that we should strive after with our lives. That's not what should be of most importance.

==========================
=Do Not Marry a Divorced Woman: Matthew 5:32 NASB
Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

> Mark 5:31-32 ESV
"31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

I believe that's all there is to it really, I believe that ideally there shouldn't be divorce, unless on the grounds of sexual immorality as stated. However, to God marriage is a sacred thing, that's why you vow till death do us part etc. I believe it is more instruction that we shouldn't just divorce our husbands/wives for our own lust. In context we can see that this refers to those who have been divorced outside of sexual immorality.

==========================

=Don’t Wear Nice Clothes: Matthew 6:28-29 NASB
And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you?

> Basically it's a message of hope, that we can have in God that in the end he is over all, it doesn't matter whether we have nice clothes or not in the end. It's not a rule telling us never to wear nice clothes.

==========================
=Hate Your Family: Luke 14:26 NASB
If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters… he cannot be My disciple.

> Luke 14:26-27 ESV
26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

I believe that as a Christian we would be ready to lay down our lives (I.E Our greatest posession) for him. This also relates to later verses where it says that all Christians will be persecuted, guarenteed, we have to make sacrifices for our faith. This verse isn't telling us that we hate our own family to be saved.

==========================

=Give Away EVERYTHING You Own: Luke 14:33 NASB
So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

> Now what people literally translate this as is give it all away and just live without absolutely anything and die via starvation. This indeed is linked to above, that we will have to make sacrifices for our faith, even up to our own life (Hence martyrs for our faith exist).

>>9 So God hasn't said "rape is fine" yet (assuming a God exists to say such things) is nothing more than a whim though. Morality prescribed by God has no reason supporting it, and in that way is even more arbitrary than every human saying "we don't like something because it's harmful to people". That's because at least people have some reason for backing up what they're saying (namely that biologically designed/raised to dislike certain things), but God must have absolutely no reasons for his deciding that something is wrong. If he did have a reason motivating his proclamation that rape is bad, then that reason is the cause of rape being bad. In that case, God would be your teacher of what is right and wrong, but not the arbiter (so DVT wouldn't be a thing). Ultimately,(objective) morality prescribed by God would be even more whimsical than (subjective) morality that's agreed upon by humans. The only reason that you would want to follow it would be because you have greater deference for God than any number of people.

Also, my criticism of your conflating subjective and objective morality in the example you gave doesn't really hinge on whether or not you believe in objective morality. In your example, you assumed that morality was subjective and then you started talking about morality objectively, which just makes it an example full of contradictions.

like is stated i don't believe in god or any entity on a higher plane of existence for that matter nor do i have any religious believes. I don't think that morality is strictly a matter of religion or whether god thinks what you're doing is right or wrong. I also only gave the USA and the middle east as an example, I'm not judging them i just think that they are far opposites on the morality spectrum(I'm also not referring to ongoing wars and conflicts).

>>11 You missed the point entirely. That article was just linked as a New Testament show of the wide interpretations Bible laws can take, not something intended to start a debate about whose subjective interpretations of those particular lines are correct.

>>15
Almost every single one is out of context. As with anything you always need to read anything in context.

>>16 Okay, then I'd argue the case of Ananias and Sapphira. First Ananias lied about the amount of money that the couple donated, claiming it was more than it was. In response, the Holy Spirit immediately killed him. Then during his funeral, Sapphira claimed that her husband wasn't lying and was immediately killed by the Holy Spirit as well.

This was clearly meant to show that valuing money over doing good or following religious tradition is bad, but death is far from an appropriate punishment for lying about charitable donations. They weren't stripped of their money, they weren't shamed, they weren't cast out, rather they were killed. They had no opportunity for redemption and their punishment was extremely harsh. Americans would call that cruel and unusual punishment.

As a matter of fact, any infinite punishment (i.e. Hell) for any finite crime could easily be argued to be excessive and therefore unfair.

>>16 I don't particularly care if some whiny atheism blog takes the Bible out of context, as the religious do the same plenty, and even in context, anyone can make anything out of those bible stories. I refuse to debate about your subjective interpretation of the meaning each story has.

The point is that though things were more plain in the Old Testament, many of those questionable lessons and others are still suggested through its stories, depending on whether or not either side is cherry picking.

Anyway, back on topic, and let's use modern examples.

I believe morals are a personal thing affected by your upbringing and mental state. Because people don't share morals and have a variety of opinions on the same topic, a law-based society that ignores personal morals is necessary for stability. We are currently at a turning point in a society such as this, where the force of a connected people is causing personal morals to take the forefront. This is done under the guise of social justice, but in the end it is no different than the rise of religious leaders as explained below.

Previous alternatives to this law model included religiously-run gov't where, rather than simply forcing black and white laws on its citizens, they also manipulated their minds. By making citizens believe everyone shared or should share the same morals, they were able to more easily keep the stability necessary for a functional society. The problem with this model is that it gives the religious leaders too much power over the psychology of its citizens, and eventually someone greedy will manipulate that for their own means, as we've seen with everything from the Crusades to the wars in the Middle East.

In addition, these societies generally reject those who believe in different religions not because they hate them but rather because that creates social pockets where there is no psychological control. This is the (well, one of the) reasoning for America's separation of church and state. By grandfathering in citizens from a variety of upbringings and morals, it was thought you could ensure no dictator could control the whole populace, at least not by anything except objective laws chosen by a complicated system of checks and balances.

In circumstances where there is a mass change in morals, such as when Europe ceased slavery and women worked in WW1 and major LGB icons were accepted, altering the laws may be necessary to ensure a stable populace. However, in the modern day, people abuse these alterations as an excuse to push their personal morals on others before anything can naturally trigger the change. This creates tension in a way that simply changing laws can not fix.

An unintentional example of this may be the South's reaction to the abolishment of slavery. Major countries had long since abolished it, and half the American populace was against it, so changing the laws made sense. But because this part of the populace was never allowed to wean into it naturally, it had to be forced on them, physically, by war.

Our circumstances in America are the opposite right now; non-majority portions of the populace are using social media to appear larger than they are, to intimidate the gov'ts into changing laws and citizens into changing morals to suit them. This will simply cause unnecessary tension amongst the rest of the system and make the gov't pick between manipulating the morals of the populace against the intentions of the constitution or forcing either side down in a state of emergency.

So yeah. I think everyone should have a right to their own morals without being harassed over them, but if they want to live in the safety of a stable gov't, they may need to accept suppressing them for the greater good of society.

>>12
Correct, since God hasn't said it "yet". Except that we believe God is immutable. As I have stated, I believe God to be good, he has given us his commandments and that is unchanging. It's then again a matter of faith I guess. That's not up to me, don't believe it if you want to it's not my decision at all haha.

I believe I did not in any way say that I think morality was subjective.
I gave the example of IF it was, at least I believe so. If I said any different forgive me, it is my mistake, I don't have much time hence the lack of proofreading.

You believe that morality is subjective.
I believe that morality is objective.
Since you believe morality is subjective, the end of the debate is there unless I could ever persuade you from a subjective morality to an objective one. As it stands, yes, my morality would conflict with your subjective morality, that is all there is to it, from that, my earlier statement still stands that you can't tell anyone that what they are doing is actually "wrong", you can tell them what you think is wrong but there is no "actual" wrong.

>>17
Here, this is what I believe. All sin leads to death. It's only through grace that God even allows us to live, even with a chance for redemption. Now Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit. You see, any sin is sin, anything less than perfection is infinitely away from perfection. Any sin deserves death. I deserve death for even thinking about sinning and so does every other sinner.

>>18
"The religious do the same plenty", it doesn't matter if the religious do the same plenty, it doesn't matter if you do the same plenty, it doesn't make it right.

I have shown you that in context no, you can't make anything out of those biblical stories. The meaning of the verse comes from the words around it and not even just that but also the entire bible itself. Just simply taking a verse is like zooming in on google maps finding a common single house and assuming it to be from lets say America. Though in actual truth it may be from the UK. I am not surprised you refuse to debate, I believe it to be a personal relationship rather than a religion, so again, it's not up to me.

Could you please provide some examples? I am intrigued.

>>20 Again, I'm not going to give too many examples nor debate. This is one of those things where people are so set on the idea that their opinion is fact that the discussion isn't really worth it.

The best I can do is give something generic. If you tell me that a man fell off his horse, I may interpret that as him being a poor rider. And if you give me the context that it was a mean horse in a deadly storm, I may still interpret that as him being a poor rider for choosing to ride in that storm, while you may instead interpret it as him being in an unfortunate accident to none of his own fault. Even if the exact reasoning behind his fall is given, there is always room for one to infer what other circumstances were at work.

This is why, from person to person and church to church, stories in the Bible have widely different interpretations. Having a functional discussion on the meanings of each is a topic that can't even be scratched until those speaking come to an agreement on what happened in the story.