Why follow God and what makes it moral?

I honestly agree with your premise, but I am asking a question that looks before we get so such principles - I am asking why anyone should be a Christian, or follow God through any other creed, in the first place.

 

Because we decide to. Are we not free to choose?

Do you have a problem with "love one another?" Can you think of a better way? By all means, share it!

 

That's exactly (*)(*)(*)(*)ing right! I made this thread for my question. If you dont like it (*)(*)(*)(*) off. No one cares about your hatred Neutral. Go cry some where else.

SO WHAT???????? IF AD HOMINEM IS YOUR ONLY GAME - (*)(*)(*)(*) OFF.

Actually I have already excepted one persons position on the application of parts of religious doctrine. But you wouldnt know because you dont care.

I really hope you get banned for this. If you dont want to address the TOPIC of the THREAD, then please do us all a favor and (*)(*)(*)(*) off. I am being serious Neutral. The nature of this thread has been entirely civil until your appearance.

 

I agree, but my question is, why should we act so? What makes those acts correct in an of themselves?

Think of a better way of what? My question is why should I love one another as they love me etc?

 

If you dont care, fine just go away.

Where have I done ANY of that in this thread?

The moderators cna see I have not inflamed you in anyway. You came here for the express purpose of attacking me. I actually wrote a sincere (even if slight) apology to people like you who I may have upset earlier on. I will not engage in ad hominem with you again.

I pity you Neutral, sincerely I do. Something must have happened to you in your life to make you so vicious, and whatever it is I hope you overcome it.

 

The unfortunate truth is that the majority of people are not very adept at rational objective reasoning. That much is made painfully obvious by the myriad of utterly inane posts submitted to this forum every day. Therefore, for the very necessary and important function of social organization, such folks really do need some sort of manual which they revere as sacred to instruct them on how to live like a civilized human being.

Of course, today, most people take much of these cues from television sitcoms, which have served fairly well as a source for cognitive direction and reinforcement of collective social mores, attitudes, and behaviors.

Because they have been so effective at maintaining social cohesion, organization, and stability. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity proved an invaluable tool for reorganizing Europe in the absence of a strong central government. Islam proved very effective as a tool for social organization also.

 

Why must it answer "should?" Why can't it just be what is chosen?

There is a benevolence in the decision to love that serves the greater good. In that, they are "correct" in and of themselves by virtue of their intent to serve others.

see above--I think I answered it already.

 

I think I did answer this question, Megadethfan, quite adequately.

Remember that you are "assuming God is real" in your OP. Why be a Christian is based on what you believe about God. It is a way to identify your ideology if nothing else.

Another question ?

I don't know how you got that from what I wrote honestly,unless you didn't see the value in what I wrote about why I pray.

 

That's the thing, this isn't my premise,it is Christianity.

 

Because that is my question - why should I do what God says I should do? What is the objective reasoning that makes those acts intrinsically good?

I agree to the extent that some (perhaps many) of the acts proscribed in religion, such as love thy neighbor, are moral because they consider the interests of others. But outside of that love I cannot see why other deeds, such as prayer, abstinence etc should be carried out.

And I understand for that one command, but not for the others - do you see my point?

 

No you didnt. Perhaps I should rewrite it:

why should I do what God says?

and

what makes what he says moral?

So you are saying that because I believe in God I should do what God says. Ok, but why? Why is it that belief in God begets doing what he says to do? A satanist for example believes in God yet does not do what he says. My question is, why should I do what God says even if he is real and even if I believe in him?

Well the OP has two questions in its point, so yes.

So the value in praying then is in self interest - ie saving yourself? Is that what you are saying?

 

Ok, so what is the reason within your point that shows why I should follow God or why I should be Christian for that matter? Even if I am a Christian, why should I follow God?

 

Because its the right thing to do.

Do you see what you are doing, AGAIN?

"Oh, I have an honest question, I am little old innocent MDF - I look like a smurf ... see hpw innocent I am?"

"Ha, stupid Christian, don't you know there is no God, and no matter the fact that I cannot find anything that Jesus says that I woud consider immoral, I am too obtuse to acknoweldge the morality, just so I can call you stupid! Haha! "

Lets try this is a reverse, your standard shall we?

"Hmmm, I am simply innocent MDF, and I have a question?"

"Why should anyone follow atheism or how does anyone who has no code and shift what they believe on dime to bugger the living crap out of others ... why would anyone with even a smidgen of honor follow the code of trite that insults even atheists by calling it atheism?"

"What!?! Its just a simple question? MODS!!! Someone is insinuating that this line of reasning is not entirely honorable!!!!! How dare they!"

No worries, no matter what you come up with - we'll call you an idiot. See how smart I am?

And did I mention that I am the honorary high priest, magical penumbra first order, of the church of the pink panda? Yep, we can make up (*)(*)(*)(*) about your faith to. Shocking isn't it?

 

Lol, so if you didn't have some moral code pressed into your mind by your religion, you would just rape and murder and destroy. That's the argument you have.

 

And you have absolutely nothing. You do seem to have the curious tendancy to go right for the jugular with posters whom you seem to have inordinate familiarity with for a newb. Odd.

At this point I am convinced you are a sock puppet anyway, isn't that right Wyz?

Don't you have something better to do than getting booted off debate forums? Guess not.

 

If I'm a sock, you're certainly the puppet.

 

Hmmm .... well, you dropped your super victim cape AGAIN! But, with a chip on your shoulder, excuse me, that giant piece of timber on your shoulder, its probably hard to keep the cape from falling.

No worries though, I am off to rape and pillage as God is no doubt commanding me to do anyway .... after that, I will be persecuting some random atheists by shooting staples from a staple gun into their head (it really makes them angry for some reason - but since I am bigger than them all .... I can get away with it). Agh, the backyard bonfires where we burn atheists at the stake while sharing a snifer of Cognac with the local law enforcement we bribed really goes with a good sunset.

Are we supposed to take the stuff seriously? These delusions of persecutions and Christian actions? Some people hae taken ignorance of our faith and made it into professional proversion. Somehow though, that is our fault? Reflects on us rather than them?

And nary a single atheist to correct this behavior ... again.

 

How so? What I mean is, what makes it right?

No...

I dont recall ever throwing such insults at ANYONE in this thread, so please, be quite.

If you are asking me what my code of morals is and why I follow it, I would be GLAD to answer. You dont need to insult me Neutral, just ask. I'll wait until you ask succinctly and politely, as I wrote out directly above, before I respond.

 

Whose insulting?

I am pointing out that you have:

#1 - failed to offer up your own opinion, which, I believe I stated quite clearly that you had - but which you told me that you were asking a legitimate question.

#2 - you are not applying any standards you are about to apply to anyone else's answer to your own curiously unoffered opinion.

So why not spell out your opinion and some standards for judgement of said opinion, and then conduct an honest assessment of the question you are ostensibly asking.

You do this all the time MDF, and its not an insult that people notice you doing it. You earn your reputation.

We've alreadt got a troll in here calling people of faith murders and rapists, and what you are concerned with is someone questioning your intent. Well, where is your concern for an honest examination when people are quite obviously going to extremes almost right up off the bat?

Should we not expect more of teh same?

What's your opinion? RAPIST!

I think people should be warned to expect this stuff if its going to happen, don't you? Or do you support people being accussed of criminal actions as a form of debate?

 

Let me state this again. Yes you have insulted me and yes you are not being relevant.
I see you couldnt answer my responding question, which was ENTIRELY VALID.
I see also you could formulate a concise, and polite question, but regardless I will propose my code of ethics...

Ok, so my code of ethics is this; Objectively we can see that we all have interests - including most animals and creatures with a substantive conscious. Simply because they are my own in no way means my interests are better or worth more than others. If we rationally look at the state of things in this way we can formulate an equal consideration of people's interests. This is my code of ethics - that everyone be free to pursue their interests, and that society generally attempt to allow for the greatest number of interests to be obtained. This is not an original concept by no means and there variations within its application, but its generally considered a 'preference utilitarian' form of ethics. There various people to uphold this view, such as the famous ethicist today, Peter Singer, or the late influencial economist Ludwig von Mises. However even these two had their disagreements. At least here you have the general outline of my moral principle.

Consequently, outside of the principle of the equal consideration of interests, there doesn't seem to be any reason why one should actively do what God says - especially when he says to violate the interests of others for no reason but my own conviction. Now sure there is room for golden rule implementation of religious doctrine as I agreed to on page 1 - but this still cuts off most of religious doctrine and still leaves the question of why we should follow God. One could also argue that it may be in one's interest to be religious to obtain self enlightenment etc - which also seems reasonable but in and of itself also leaves the clear opportunity for one to say 'well I don't think it will fulfill my interests' and hence not be moral in that way.

Consequently my inquiry into why one should, with rational thought and objective observation be religious, follow God or consider God good, rather than bad or vis versa.

I hope I articulated myself clearly enough but I'd be glad to further elaborate where need be. Also, when discussing my ethical position I would prefer we keep it limited to these initial basis since this is what the threads topic is about, not so much the application or extension of the principle, although we can discuss them.

 

Well then, perhaps the problem is with your trying to make God and religion something it isn't. Sometimes the flaw is in the question because it presumes some things that are not true.

As another post pointed out, you started with the premise that you believe God exists. Your thinking on God doesn't stop there; if it does, you don't really believe God exists. As prospect said, one becomes a Christian based on what one believes to be true about this God--about the nature of God and personal evidence as to the reality of God. And then my 1st answer comes into play--you DECIDE to act according to those conclusions--you CHOOSE to be Christian or whatever aligns with what you have come to believe about God.

Can your ideas change? Sure! You don't believe in God one day and "VIOLA! I have this Christian thing down pat!" The relationship with God evolves and matures and ebbs and flows ALL YOUR LIFE. The aim is to finish the race having truly done all that you could to come to know God as God is--as God wants to be known.

Because it helps us to come know God better, and it deepens our conviction and understanding of the paradox of the Servant Savior. It is discipline as we grow in coming to know more fully this God who is beyond the limits of our ability to fully know. We are a mystery to one another, How much moreso is the mystery of God? However, we can know one another on different levels--we can grow in knowing one another--the same is true of God.

 

I am not disputing what it is to be a Christian, what I am asking is what the objective and rational basis is to do what God says and what is it that makes God's laws moral? Following blind faith merely means you odnt have a reason, you just do it because you are told. Its like that old question your mum would ask when you're a kid - 'If god told you to jump off a cliff would you do it'? According to you, you would jump without a second thought, whereas I would say, 'why god? why do you want me to jump - why should I?'

But again you are simply reformulating my question. In this case then, given what you have said, my question becomes - why is it good or worth it to come to know God better? If we do not know God well enough to understand him and consequently cant understand why we should do things then this is all the more reason why we dont have to do anything he orders us to.

 

How do you want your question to be answered?

If you believe in God, it is a given that you deem that entity greater than yourself--that is the reason you perceive the entity as God. Because it is greater than you, THAT is why--THAT is the objective and rational reason for respecting that entity.


Does that answer it? Really, if not, there must be something imprecise about how you are asking the question.

I said nothing like that at all anywhere. I don't recall anyone else saying that either. Perhaps you have a bias that you should explore more deeply if you think that is what occurs in the human response to the belief in God.

There is a certain degree of trust that is handed over in faith. It's not trust without reason, but it is assenting to the benevolence of this greater entity.

See the story of Isaac and Abraham in the OT.

Why seek to understand the workings of the universe even though you can't possibly understand it fully? Why bother with empirical science at all?--after all, it is only evidence to what is, it isn't the reality of all that is.

You're making excuses. My guess is there is something niggling you about this God thing that gets under your skin, but you don't like what it calls you to do or change in your life. That's okay--that is everyone's struggle. That trust I mentioned is something that grows (IF you allow it to). I wish you well with your journey.

 

What makes God's laws moral is God. We who are Christian are of God and desire to obey and please God our Father. If you do not want God, fine. Live and die without Him.

We who are Christian do know God well enough to understand Him.

Quantrill

 

So you claim his is a self described agnostic christian

then share a profound reality

i like that part..................

as it shares to stop dividing the 'self' from a 'god' like wingnuts do. To me it is the same stupidity of genesis that shares mankind was sort of kicked out of the garden but then Gen 3:22

And God saith, `Lo, the man was as one of Us, as to the knowledge of good and evil; and now, lest he send forth his hand, and have taken also of the tree of life, and eaten, and lived to the age,'

you just said he was an agnostic christian..............

are all trolls supposed to be neutral or is stupidity purely what your posts expose?