Prove it.
Facts require evidence.
You have yet to explain why the Bible should count as factual evidence. It shouldn't. It's a work of fiction and God is a fictional character within that work of fiction, much like James Raynor of StarCraft or Mario of Super Mario Bros. So, until you provide evidence for ANY of your points, do not expect someone else to do so out of the kindness of their heart.
The whole point of this topic is to discuss whether God defines morality or not; if the Christian God exists then it wouldn't make sense for God to not define morality, or He would be bounded by something beyond Himself. If God doesn't exist then there is no absolute morality, only whatever morals you feel yourself or can enforce on others.
It is very disturbing that you are not content with enforcing your skewed version of reality upon people, but must go a step further and have your own moral choices become the paradigm of a good citizen. That is inherently evil; it's not even an arguable issue anymore. I need not even respond to points like this without ridiculing you for being so downright shortsighted.
I consider the God of the Bible to be perfectly moral, because He created morality. Everything which God has done is moral because He chooses what is moral and what isn't.
Riddle me this; I create a biome. I create all the organisms within. The entire landscape is in my vision. These organisms that I've created have lives, families, sentience, and build cities. Then, I flood the biome, blow up the cities, and plague and slaughter the sentient organisms. Am I moral? If your answer is yes, check in to your nearest mental institution and do us all a favour.
You're asserting that there is no higher power. The burden of proof now lies with you, but you'll find that it is impossible to prove a higher power does not exists, just as it is impossible to prove one does exist.
You could say the same thing about disproving the existence of unicorns (and you'd be right), but if no evidence for something exists (and works of fiction don't count, otherwise Scooby Doo is now real), it is already disproved. You're not real until proven otherwise - reality doesn't work like that.
Also, are you suggesting morality is a universal constant that applies to every organism the same as it does to man? Is asexual reproduction of amoeba sinful? If you cannot apply these sets of moralities to all species, why are you trying to apply it to something otherworldly?
God does not exist; he is fictional, thus I am not applying it to something otherworldly. There is no argument that can be made for the existence of God, anymore than there's an argument for the existence of the Zerg or the Metroids.
Other organisms, like lions, tigers, and bears, cannot comprehend moral justifications, nor can they see a moral consequence. Neither could early humans; if society looked to the conflicts that no doubt occurred within tribes of Neanderthals, where they raped, pillaged, slaughtered, and stole from one another, most would say something along the lines of, "That's wrong! That's immoral! That's inhumane!" You can say the same thing about lions stalking and viciously killing their prey, but it won't get you anywhere. You can indeed apply morality to anything; what you get out of it, though, is another topic of discussion altogether.
Okay, first, something cannot be both an opinion and a fact. You can have an opinion on a fact, and you can have facts that support your opinion, but whether or not apples taste good is not a fact, and whether or not apples grow from trees is not an opinion. The existence of something is either true or false (quantum shenanigans aside).
I can honestly agree with your statement here; I'm not arguing with you, though. In America, we welcome the idea that the Earth was created six thousand years ago. It wasn't. That's just not true. Thus, it's an opinion - and a wrong opinion - that the Earth was created six thousand years ago; it's a fact that it wasn't. You cannot argue aptly and readily with sentiments such as yours; when dealing with the swill and the swine of society, you do have to forgo common sensibility for practicality.
Secondly, your assertion that "God" doesn't exist isn't proven, and you've provided no evidence to support the assertion.
I essentially responded to the same statement from Jack. I'm just responding so you didn't think I ignored this response.
Finally, what does this have to do with morality?
It has more to do with the topic of discussion that this thread has turned into than it does with morality. From what I garnered from the statements here, people were discussing more the existence of God and existence of an absolute godlike Christian morality.
I consider the God of the Bible to be perfectly moral, because He created morality. Everything which God has done is moral because He chooses what is moral and what isn't.
You should walk around preaching that you're the lord of your own household, and because you built the house, and built the furniture, and built the decorations, and bred the animals, and reproduced to make the people that populate the house, you can do whatever you want and be morally sound. No. You can't. You are incorrect, and vehemently so.
Can God not choose to intentionally do something immoral? Is God incapable of immorality? If he defines morality and then acts in violation of it, is that not an instance of him being immoral?
I like this statement, especially because it bears a strong resemblance to the question, "Can God create a boulder so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" Any Christian would respond to a question that doubted God's abilities with, "God can do anything!" Such a response is damning for Jack and his ilk.
To extrapolate something, though, I find it odd that no one has brought this up yet. If I travel to a land bereft of a moral definition, and I define an accepted moral of, "It's wrong to sleep with those who are not your spouse," and I go and sleep with someone who is not my spouse, I have broken my own moral definition. I think that's obvious, and you can't really argue with that without going back to the opinion vs. fact debate that me and Roy have begun.
Come on, Azrael. Actually try to respond with reasoning and points.
It isn't a question that will be come across since we only give the death penalty for murder.
I see treason in a lot of these, buddy.
Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 4 2012, 12:27 am by Roy. Reason: Re-added nondeleted quote and specific response to said quote.