mkmyers45: Ok now likes see how a parent can be a judge



A Parent Scolding a Child for Stealing fits the criteria.....





Yes the parent has omni-knowledge on the stealing subject and has all set-knowledge to admonish the child with...



The parent has the ability to see all through the child's actions as regards to the theft...and miss no evidence.



Yes, there are strict parents who never waver from their stands due to their state of mind....so they possess unclouded judgement

Hereby we can see that to a young child, his parents can be a 'God-Source' of Morality

I was of the impression that we were talking about human morality in general and not the isolated case of parents and children. Please don't pass off a metaphor as reality. Besides, even in that special case of child and parent, God is a much better judge.

Mr_Anony:

I was of the impression that we were talking about human morality in general and not the isolated case of parents and children. Please don't pass off a metaphor as reality. Besides, even in that special case of child and parent, God is a much better judge.

I am making an analogy and to the the child the 'Parent' is a God-figure and that is what he believes and builds his morals on...

mkmyers45:

I am making an analogy and to the the child the 'Parent' is a God-figure and that is what he believes and builds his morals on...

I understand your analogy, I can also use the same analogy to describe God. But when I asked you for a standard for judging morality, I wanted you to point at something specific by which we can explain morality for all mankind, I wasn't asking for an analogy.

Mr_Anony:

I understand your analogy, I can also use the same analogy to describe God. But when I asked you for a standard for judging morality, I wanted you to point at something specific by which we can explain morality for all mankind, I wasn't asking for an analogy.

and how does that relate to God in the defined context?

mkmyers45:

and how does that relate to God in the defined context?

Oh for starters, God is specific. When I say God as defined by the bible, you know exactly who I am talking about. When I say all mankind, you know that I mean every single person including you and I. One thing is clear, I am not making an analogy.

On the other hand, when you say a parent and a child, it is obvious that you are using an analogy, it is not specific at all. You don't name which parent and which child in particular. Besides we are seeking a standard for the morality of man in general and not hypothetical parents and children.

So, are we going to make progress or shall we continue to dance around words?

Mr_Anony:
The story you are referring to is in Genesis 38:6-10, It is about Judah's first son Er, his wife Tamah and Judah's second son Onan.

Kay 17, a few things are wrong with your allegation:
1. If a husband is dead, it is not adultery if she sleeps with someone else. It is also not fornication considering that the younger brother actually married his brother's wife.
2. God did not order Onan to sleep with Tamah, it was Judah who urged Onan to marry her so that Onan can sir children for Er.
3. Onan, spilled his seed on the ground out of wickedness because he didn't want his brother's lineage to continue. This made God angry and God killed him.

Nothing in this story contradicts God's nature

No!! They Didn't get married!

Kay 17:

No!! They Didn't get married!

6.Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, tand the Lord killed him.
8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.
Genesis 38:6-10 (NKJV)

Mr_Anony:
Oh for starters, God is specific. When I say God as defined by the bible, you know exactly who I am talking about. When I say all mankind, you know that I mean every single person including you and I. One thing is clear, I am not making an analogy.

On the other hand, when you say a parent and a child, it is obvious that you are using an analogy, it is not specific at all. You don't name which parent and which child in particular. Besides we are seeking a standard for the morality of man in general and not hypothetical parents and children.

So, are we going to make progress or shall we continue to dance around words?

Are you seriously saying that the God of the Bible is an authoritative source of morality? I ask because there are good reasons why he isn't worthy of being a source of morality.

Mr_Anony:

6.Then Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, tand the Lord killed him.
8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother.
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also.
Genesis 38:6-10 (NKJV)

Ok.

thehomer:

Are you seriously saying that the God of the Bible is an authoritative source of morality? I ask because there are good reasons why he isn't worthy of being a source of morality.

Please give these reasons:

but bear in mind there is a set criteria that I and mkmyers45 have already agreed to which every moral judge must meet. You can see it in previous posts on this thread.

Mr_Anony:

Please give these reasons:

but bear in mind there is a set criteria that I and mkmyers45 have already agreed to which every moral judge must meet. You can see it in previous posts on this thread.

Please is there a main post that I'm to pay particular attention to?

thehomer:

Please is there a main post that I'm to pay particular attention to?

In a nutshell, the following were the criteria mkmyers45 and I agreed to (I think you'll find it on pages 2 and 3 of this thread)

the validity of any judge may be based on:-
1. How much power it has,
2. How much it knows about the case
3. If it can see the case from diverse veiwpoints,
4. If it has a good conscience and yet discernible
5. If it is impartial
6. If it is firm and unwavering
7. If it is singular in essense and purpose

The better a judge is at satisfying these criteria, the more he/she/it is qualified to judge or be a moral standard.

Mr_Anony:

In a nutshell, the following were the criteria mkmyers45 and I agreed to (I think you'll find it on pages 2 and 3 of this thread)

the validity of any judge may be based on:-
1. How much power it has,
2. How much it knows about the case
3. If it can see the case from diverse veiwpoints,
4. If it has a good conscience and yet discernible
5. If it is impartial
6. If it is firm and unwavering
7. If it is singular in essense and purpose

The better a judge is at satisfying these criteria, the more he/she/it is qualified to judge or be a moral standard.

I grow weary of this discourse and I wish to stop this perambulator in its petulant journey, it is like a poker game where all the players hold all 4 Aces but won't show their hand soooo; let us play a little, perhaps, I hold a joker (4 even )

Earlier on, I refused to be serious with this thread because the question reads like a dishonest Accountant yes, GOD's Nature (Authoritative Source) finally emerges after much mental cattle prodding It is really a Fly in the Ointment for Atheists

Permit me to present the End-Game from this Theist's perspective which is.. Atheists cannot Rationally defend being Moral since God is the source of Morality

I agree that It is possible to Define/re-define and Experience Morality without an Authoritative Source
Since "we" presume to know what cards you hold, let me deal mine.

Can humans discover on their own what is Right and Wrong? A simple Yes or No will suffice, but if you wish to lace it on with Scripture, be my guest

Thanks. Basically, I disagree that there is any judge that decides on morality and I don't think that the Biblical God even meets the criteria you laid out.

Mr_Anony:

In a nutshell, the following were the criteria mkmyers45 and I agreed to (I think you'll find it on pages 2 and 3 of this thread)

the validity of any judge may be based on:-
1. How much power it has,
2. How much it knows about the case
3. If it can see the case from diverse veiwpoints,
4. If it has a good conscience and yet discernible
5. If it is impartial
6. If it is firm and unwavering
7. If it is singular in essense and purpose

The better a judge is at satisfying these criteria, the more he/she/it is qualified to judge or be a moral standard.

What you need to do is to demonstrate that this authority is necessary for morality in the first place.
The first one there implies that might makes right and I'm sure you don't think that might is a necessary criterion for moral decisions.
I also don't see the need for 5,6 and 7 besides, the biblical God fails on them.
What makes for a good conscience?
I think 2 and 3 are contradictory. How can it both be omniscient and at the same time be limiting its views to certain viewpoints?

Mr_Anony:
Oh for starters, God is specific. When I say God as defined by the bible, you know exactly who I am talking about. When I say all mankind, you know that I mean every single person including you and I. One thing is clear, I am not making an analogy.

On the other hand, when you say a parent and a child, it is obvious that you are using an analogy, it is not specific at all. You don't name which parent and which child in particular. Besides we are seeking a standard for the morality of man in general and not hypothetical parents and children.

So, are we going to make progress or shall we continue to dance around words?

Kindly expanciate on all bolded.....Please draw me back to where we defined 'the standard of morality of man in general'

lagerwhenindoubt:

I grow weary of this discourse and I wish to stop this perambulator in its petulant journey, it is like a poker game where all the players hold all 4 Aces but won't show their hand soooo; let us play a little, perhaps, I hold a joker (4 even )

Earlier on, I refused to be serious with this thread because the question reads like a dishonest Accountant yes, GOD's Nature (Authoritative Source) finally emerges after much mental cattle prodding It is really a Fly in the Ointment for Atheists

Permit me to present the End-Game from this Theist's perspective which is.. Atheists cannot Rationally defend being Moral since God is the source of Morality

I agree that It is possible to Define/re-define and Experience Morality without an Authoritative Source
Since "we" presume to know what cards you hold, let me deal mine.

Can humans discover on their own what is Right and Wrong? A simple Yes or No will suffice, but if you wish to lace it on with Scripture, be my guest

This is what I want to know. Can a baby discover what is right or wrong by his/her self?

This will require a very unethical study whose results will never be published.

Everything we can do here is conjecture after we have been influenced morally by other factors.

lagerwhenindoubt:

Can humans discover on their own what is Right and Wrong? A simple Yes or No will suffice, but if you wish to lace it on with Scripture, be my guest

My answer to your question is No. Human beings need a reference point from which to judge right and wrong.

^^^

What of Reason??

What reference point would God use?? His wishes or his benefits or our benefits?? Or merely arbitrary??

Kay 17: ^^^

What of Reason??

What reference point would God use?? His wishes or his benefits or our benefits?? Or merely arbitrary??

We have gone down "benefits lane" before, I am not in the mood to go down that route again. Our morality is subject to God and objective to us

mkmyers45:

Kindly expanciate on all bolded.....Please draw me back to where we defined 'the standard of morality of man in general'

My friend, read that post again, It is very clear and besides, if you actually read that post before quoting it, you would have seen that I said we were seeking a moral standard and not that we had defined a moral standard.

Just wait for it....
Methinks everybody have had their own conclusion prepared in their mind, they just need what will validate it.
Just wait till the end of everything..

Mr_Anony:

We have gone down "benefits lane" before, I am not in the mood to go down that route again. Our morality is subject to God and objective to us

So morality is basically God saying his own. And there is no reasonable obligation to follow it?!

thehomer: Thanks. Basically, I disagree that there is any judge that decides on morality and I don't think that the Biblical God even meets the criteria you laid out.

The question isn't as much if there is a judge but the qualities such a judge must have to qualify.

What you need to do is to demonstrate that this authority is necessary for morality in the first place.

Thats simple, the fact that there is a moral law necessitates a moral lawgiver.

The first one there implies that might makes right and I'm sure you don't think that might is a necessary criterion for moral decisions.

I think you've read it wrong. It is only right that someone who can judge you must have authority over you.

I also don't see the need for 5,6 and 7 besides, the biblical God fails on them.

You don't see the need for such a judge to be impartial, firm and of one character? How so?

What makes for a good conscience?

well this I'll concede to since we haven't yet defined "good" and the moral law-giver has to define good.

I think 2 and 3 are contradictory. How can it both be omniscient and at the same time be limiting its views to certain viewpoints?

Actually 3 wasn't meant to read as diverse viewpoints but all possible viewpoints.

Kay 17:

So morality is basically God saying his own. And there is no reasonable obligation to follow it?!

It simply follows that if God's nature is good, the only reasonable good would be to keep in line with His nature.

Mr_Anony:
It simply follows that if God's nature is good, the only reasonable good would be to keep in line with His nature.

Since you have earlier in time, have defined good as whatever God wishes it to be. Therefore your above post doesn't address any thing new.

There is a reason why good is itself.

Kay 17:

Since you have earlier in time, have defined good as whatever God wishes it to be. Therefore your above post doesn't address any thing new.

Exactly! That's why I said I wasn't in the mood to go down the same route as before.

Kay 17: There is a reason why good is itself.

What reason is this if I may ask?

Mr_Anony:
The question isn't as much if there is a judge but the qualities such a judge must have to qualify.

Actually, the topic is wondering whether or not morality is possible without the sort of judge you're proposing. I'm saying it is possible you're saying it isn't.

Mr_Anony:
Thats simple, the fact that there is a moral law necessitates a moral lawgiver.

What is this moral law? And is it prescriptive (i.e does it tell you what to do) or is it descriptive (or does it tell you how things should be).

Mr_Anony:
I think you've read it wrong. It is only right that someone who can judge you must have authority over you.

Well a dictator has authority over his subjects. Does this mean that his word should be law?

Mr_Anony:
You don't see the need for such a judge to be impartial, firm and of one character? How so?

I meant that I don't see how a judge being impartial, firm and of one character would affect what it means to perform a moral action.
And the biblical God is partial, he has been known to change his mind and how can he be of one character when he is actually three people? I mean, what is his single purpose?

Mr_Anony:
well this I'll concede to since we haven't yet defined "good" and the moral law-giver has to define good.

If the moral law giver has to define good, does this then mean that whatever he says is good becomes good or is it that he decides that something is good because it is actually good?

Mr_Anony:
Actually 3 wasn't meant to read as diverse viewpoints but all possible viewpoints.

Okay. So he understands the reasons why people may not accept him and the reasons why people may not accept his morality.

thehomer:

Actually, the topic is wondering whether or not morality is possible without the sort of judge you're proposing. I'm saying it is possible you're saying it isn't.

You see this is the problem with butting into a conversation halfway. I and mkmyers had already agreed on the necessity of a moral judge and moved on to describe what its attributes must then be. For you, I can't proceed with this debate from here since you don't acknowledge a moral lawgiver in the first place. We'll backtrack a little.

How do you define morality absent an objective moral standard?

Mr_Anony:
My friend, read that post again, It is very clear and besides, if you actually read that post before quoting it, you would have seen that I said we were seeking a moral standard and not that we had defined a moral standard.

I have sought and referred to you a standard of morality based on our points...A parent (God-figure) and the child

mkmyers45:

I have sought and referred to you a standard of morality based on our points...A parent (God-figure) and the child

Yes but you are speaking in parables, you are only limiting it to a special case and you don't name any specific parents and children. Your standard is so generic and without any specific character

Mr_Anony:
Yes but you are speaking in parables, you are only limiting it to a special case and you don't name any specific parents and children. Your standard is so generic and without any specific character

Ok, every religion tries to depict thier God as the true moral judge based on the points we have set out so i am making an example with something more exclusive and rational