Now, let’s accept that “to kill” is a negative concept.

About the morality…

For occult religions where it’s taught to kill, it’s perfectly moral.

Morality cannot be explored without the concept of society. We then should not forget that religion is transmitted to the person through society. What makes an act moral is usually what the whole think about it and what a person is taught to think about it.

About God…

“Thou shalt not kill.” and “… it’s a moral responsibility of all believers to kill anyone…”. Changing mind is in some way the proof of the presence of doubt about our previous ideas. If some “thinking” entity can change its mind that radically, it doesn’t deserve to be assimiliated to the concept of God because one premise of the concept of God (at least for the Catholicism) is that He is omniscient.

Another point is that some humans tend to humanize concepts they don’t understand. It’s even worse when they don’t adhere to those concepts.

This way of apprehending fuzzy concepts usually stands on the miscomprehension of the primary information and  distorts the deductions made from it. An example would be Moses who is instructed to kill. Suppose that he has really had some information about killing. Was he sure of the source of that information? Was he sure he understood it the right way? Besides, are we sure that the exact words in Hebrew has been transcripted and translated correctely?

Humans should try first to make the difference between what they want and what is wanted by the entity they are believing in. The rest is a personal choice.

So Daniel, you should not be attributing some forged facts to a concept you don’t adhere too, moreover without defining what you exactely mean by “God”. This behaviour is a open provocation to some of your siblings.

What I see that goes on with a lot of Christians is having selective memory of God– they remember certain things about God- of course, the good things- but disregard all the not-so-godly things. It’s important to remember that before His Son God was in the business of doing some sketchy things and being a little mean plus some. 

Take two instances.

There was a tribe that believed in eating their fathers after they died (ridiculous and ghastly, i know). The Greeks, meanwhile, thought cremation was best.

If the tribe were asked to cremate their father’s body, they would say it was wrong. If the Greeks were asked to eat their father’s corpse they would be repulsed and would think it wrong.

There are two different societies that are shaping their moral codes.

However, moral relativity tells you that since they are both different, and since there are many societies, then there’s no moral absolute or universal truth.

Fallacy, again. Why?

Take for instance… There were two groups that had different believes about the shape of the Earth. One group thought the Earth was round. The other thought of it as flat.

Sure, relativity theories would tell you then that there is no truth in those arguments.

But, obviously there is. The Earth is round, and if you say otherwise, slap yourself once, look in the mirror, and go slap yourself five more times, and go put on some 3D glasses.

So, my point is, there needs not be two conflicting attitudes that downgrade the propinquity of one choice to its truth to prove that absolutes are not obsolete-they’re undoubtebly real ( ostensibly, not everything is absolute- but that is a paradox in itself). Differences in viepoints don’t make anything relative-the proliferation of wrongs and rights occur- points pertaining to morals themselves. There is one viepoint that is utterly wrong, and the other right.

Again, I am not perfect. But I try to do as best as I can according to my reasoning.

Science tells you space, time, and matter exists.

It also tells you that the beginning of the universe occured at an infinitely small point of space,time and matter.

God, according to religion, created life.

He created space, time, and matter.

If he created that, he had to come before it.

If God is before the existence of matter, that means he is intangible, immaterial, a spirit.

If God is before space, that means he is infinite.

If God is before time, that means he is eternal.

First and foremost, you claim that God will come to me and tell me to kill someone because he tells me to do so. He won’t do that because I am not a perfect human being, and I don’t have the devine authority to receive such important information. It won’t happen- it is highly hypothetical and you made it up.

Secondly, If a “God” tells me to kill an innocent man because he tells me so, he is ostensibly not God, but someone posing as God- a detail warned about in the Bible. There are usurpers who deceitfully turn themselves into God’s image; the devil, for instance, but that doesn’t make them God.

Third, people can chose both of your premises: I would accept something that is morally acceptable because it comes from God, and I would accept something as moral because it comes from me. Why?

Here is why.

We were created in God’s image. Meaning: there’s a part of God that resides within us or within nature. For starters, moral judgement. We know that is wrong to murder, rape, lie and steal. Individuals are a link to God. God is morality. He is above men. He is absolute. I am not saying that I am a totally moral person, because nobody is perfect and we all comit sins. We lie at some point or another, and our behavior sometimes doesn’t reflect our moral judgement. What I am saying is that God will never tell me to kill a man because killing a man defies morality. God is good. God is moral. Morals and God are linked in some form or another, and there’s a fallacy in that argument because of that- your premise doesn’t have the real God; it is an evil ideology employed by an usurper God that is not the moral and real one.

And even if God existed, his saying something does not make it objective morality. It was his choice, but that does not make it objective (unless your definition of objective morality is equal to what God says… but what’s the point about arguing about definitions? It’s pointless.)

First of all, the argument I’m giving here came from Plato (I think); I was simply restating it in a more verbose manner than the common quote.

As for your criticism of the content, i.e. title, that’s just silly. I’m calling morality a sense of what a person thinks is right or wrong. This is not incorrect enough, if it is so, to warrant your comments.

Call me sloppy, sure. But I am at least thinking and writing it down. I’ll take a crapload of constantly improving bad thought over none at all whenever asked.

Sorry you’re disappointed.

The fundamental mistake you make is in the title. You imply that morality can come from within. Morality is not a feeling or internally generated thing. It is by definition a proposition of what is good/proper in terms of behavior, a sort of command that is first and foremost a communication between two or more minds.

The God of orthodox Christianity would not issue a mandate. The god of dialectical materialism would.

The god of dialectical materialism would tell you “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.

Really? So consigning millions of people to their deaths in a gas chamber is a Christian act? If I tell you that I am a Democrat or Republican – take your pick , you let me in your house because you identify with that group affiliation, then I do something totally uncharacteristic of that group, you won’t be asking questions, right?

Hitler’s personal secretary interestingly recorded his great disdain for the Church in Germany, as it protected those he sought to have interred in the camps.

We can all agree that if God DOES exist, surely we cannot even come close to comprehending him, his power, his understanding, or his influence. With that settled, I can conclude that if God came down from heaven and asked me to do anything (no matter how ridiculous) I cannot in any way presume to know how I would feel after being asked. Without any such knowledge, the question now fails to have any relevance whatsoever. A God that gave us the morality we have now could very easily make it feel quite morally right to do anything He asked.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

If you can show me which of these fruits Hitler produced and that he followed the 10 commandments then you may have a case that Hitler was a Christian. It is clear that you do not know what a Christian is if you think that someone is a Christian merely by stating it as so. On the other hand, in your thought process you are saying that if someone told you they were mother Teresa and then proceeded to slash the throats of little children you would still believe they were mother Teresa simply because they stated as such??? I am truly surprised by this self-stultifying line of reasoning.

And I think it is good that most people seem to have this internal morality – that most would probably balk at such a “silly” new rule. It’s fuel for optimism, for belief in humanity.

“Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. “

Hitler – 24 Oct, 1933

If not, your morality does not come from God.

if your atheistic ruler ….stalin, hitler, pol pot, kim jong etc etc ….asked you to inform on your dangerous religious friend to the state police would you ? it sounds like it to me, but if you didnt why not ?? on what basis would you refuse a lawful command of your government ?