CoffeeFiend

Although in some cases, murder could be justified. For example, in ancient eskimo societies, young female babies were killed if there simply were no resources to feed another mouth in the family. Males were also killed, but not so often, because they were potential hunters. Sounds wrong and cruel, but would it be better to let the child slowly die of hunger later on ? Furthermore, murder is also justified in modern societies in the form of capital punishment and in the context of wars.

babelfish

Yes, but how do we KNOW God is good? How can we attribute the quality of goodness to our so-called moral standard (God) if we don't already have something within us that tells us God is good?

And if we already have this moral compass within us, why do we need an external moral standard?

That's what I meant.

Soul Invictus

Not that I don't believe you, however could you steer me to a source for the eskimo history? I follow you with the capital punishment.

Rusting Car Bumper

How can you know that goodness only comes from Christ unless you already know what goodness is? That is, in order to know your statement above is true then I would already have to understand goodness in order to formulate the understanding that Christ is Good. In order to have already known what goodness is in order to make said judgement then it clearly means I knew what good was before I understood that Christ was Good.

Conclusion: Knowing the Good precedes understanding that Christ is good.

Precisely. I see (in the newspaper) priests, ministers, pastors and leaders of various Christian demoninations involved in sex scandals, sex crimes, theft, lies, deceit and so on. Not only that but I see other Christians involved in good works, charity, campassion and so forth.

Conclusion: Being Christian or a member of any other religion in and of itself does not contirbute to any ones moral quality.

DC

Starboy

If the Christian moral code includes such directives as observe the sabbath, and it requires that you follow the whole thing or you are not following it at all, then as an atheist you can never live the moral life. Silly atheists, morals are for Christians.

Starboy

seebs

The "all or nothing" isn't exactly correct. It is "all or not-good-enough", but that's not the same as "nothing".

Starboy

What does it mean "not-good-enough"? Not good enough for what? Maybe you can answer this question for me. From a Christian's point of view what is the purpose of morals? Also, is it the intent of god that hell be a place that no one wants to enter? What if you want to go to hell? Can you still be a Christian?

Starboy

seebs

I think you have a lot of faulty assumptions. To be fair, they're the simplistic answers generally handed out to kids, and a lot of people never look past them.

The purpose of morals is simple; to act in a moral manner is right. They need no justification beyond that. It is desirable to act in such a manner.

As to hell, hell is more a state than a place. I don't think it makes sense to "want to go to hell", any more than it makes sense to "want to be confused".

Starboy

seebs, I am surprised. I would have thought that you would not just accept something because it is "right". And if it is right, then right for what?

Hell is more like a state eh? Like California?

I have met people that wanted to be confused. Maybe there are people that want to be in hell. Would it crack the universe if there were?

Starboy

seebs

I consider morality to be in the same category as physics; the laws of physics just *are*. So, the answer to "right for what?" is "morality!".

In the end, morality comes down to value judgments. Given the judgment "X is morally right", it is a tautology to claim "people should do X." That's what moral rightness of action means.

No, I just think it's meaningless. To be in Hell is to not be where you want to be, in a lot of ways.