| Jay520 said: @RCT Well obviously if tie your definition of morality to God's character, then of course there can't be morality without him. Basically you're saying "humans lack the ability to be "God" which is quite obvious. If your definition of morality isn't what's best for the most people possible, then morality is pretty useless. If morality isn't what's best for most people, then why should people be "moral"? We shouldn't. We should do what's best for the most people possible, and if that's not moral by your definition, then humanity shouldn't be "moral". Either way, doing what's best for the most people possible would have the same end result as acting morally. |
I must not have been clear; I apologize.
Of course I know that we can't have all of the attributes of God's character. We would be God if that was the case. Morality is the commands that God gives us to live lives that reflect His love and glory and ultimately bring a most satisfying life.
You're still confusing morality with what is best form an evolutionary standpoint. We as conscious creatures would obviously love to flourish and do what's best for us, but from a naturalistic viewpoint, who is to say that this particular way is objectively good? We aren't morally obligated to look out for the well-being of other people beyond the commands of other people.
Think of the naturalistic morality as a game of chess. You can make good moves and bad moves. You don't, however, call a bad move an "evil" move. Simultaniously, you can't call the Ravens a morally rightous team because they won the Super Bowl. THey're completely different things.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to equate morality with pleasure vs misery, which do not always correlate with each other, and thus, are not universally combatable and relatable.
WHO IS JESUS REALLY?
