Crashman

This is a long shot but...

I think there were societies that actually did that sort of thing. Classical Sparta and Nazi Germany comes to mind. What happened to them? If that kind of thing is good for the society, then why is it that it wasn't carried over. Could it be that the moral code we follow actually provides an evolutionary advantage?

I'm confused. What was my point again?

If logic be the "moral" guide, there is no reason for the dumb, the physically weak, the unmotivated, the alcoholics, etc. to even exist. Atheists (here) think that destroying God would make the world a little more fun. Yeah right. Look at CHINA, they've effectively ignored the God moral code. Not too fun now is it?

Okay, I just wanna have some fun with this. If logic is the moral guide, there would still be reason for the dumb, the weak, the unmotivated and the alcoholics to exist. We can use them for food.

Yeah, I must admit that the lawmakers themselves are guided, or at the very least, influenced, by the same moral code in the scriptures.

I have one question though it might be a bit off topic. If, for example, the whole world suddenly agrees to a NO GOD policy, seeing that the current atheist set of morals does not need God anymore and yet seem to provide us with what we need. What do you think will happen? Will we suddenly break out into a worldwide rock concert with sex, drugs and rock and roll?

I guess my point is, God's moral code may indeed be relevant but can the same code survive without the god concept? If we do not believe in God, do you think we will k*ll? Dishonor our parents? Hate one another?

Q: God's Moral Code, do we still need it?

A: The question is whether or not we still need it, but whether or not it is still relevant.

Seeing that the monkeys already hacked at the old testament laws (which, by the way, was a weak attack considering that skitz' initial stand was "love god and love one another" and not the ten commandments), let me point out why following that moral code can be next to ridiculous.

It is quite understandable that a smaller population can be quite easier to handle. Thus in the old times, these moral codes might have been more effective. Why? Because it was easier to check if people were following them not to mention that it was easier to distinguish the ones who were not following the code from those who actually were. It was easier to gather a consensus whether a person should be punished for not following the code. Case in point was barabbas, who, despite being a criminal was freed by the people. If you would take into consideration the point of view that morality was established to promote the welfare of the species, understanding the decisions made back then may be easier to do. If the people were to ask themselves, "Is barabbas aiding us or is he not?", they could simply answer it and make judgement. They did the same thing with Jesus and the people judged accordingly. Note that when they judged Jesus, they at least thought that they were doing it in the name of God.

Now, consider the same scenario in modern times. Considering a very large population, can we use the same method? No. We cannot simply gather everyone and judge then and there. We wouldn't get anything done that way. Therefore, any moral code must have to be agreed upon by the majority of the people but detailed enough so that it would cover most cases. In cases that are not covered by the said code, then either the people convene in order to discuss such a thing or representatives of the people can be appointed so that the majority's voice can be heard. (Notice that I am now building up my code from scratch and with explanations, although the code I am making seem to be very familiar)

What I am saying is that God's laws are irrelevant. While, in a certain instance, I may think that I am doing a right thing to my friend, my friend may think otherwise. In those cases, who's gonna be the judge? If it is a mere mortal who will judge, then the parameters must be detailed enough in order to avoid error as much as possible.

The law is this code. It is not perfect but at least it is ever evolving to integrate into the system the new things that come to our lives as citizens. Therefore, it is also our duty to help enforce and uphold the law and help improve the law. As citizens we have this power, only we do not always exercise it.

If you don't believe in God, the law is a general guideline. Needless to say, exploiting the weaknesses of the law for personal gain at the expense of others defeats this purpose which is why we have the judicial system that we have.

But as I have said, it is far from perfect. But definitely better than God's Laws as it is more detailed and reduces the room for error in judging.

As to who gets to decide what is wrong and what is right. The answer is easy. The majority. This comes from the assumption that the majority will decide for the benefit of the majority and thus at all times (at least in theory), a system like this will benefit the most number of people.

Smile at my stupiity, grab a couple of beers, and try to enjoy the fall. After all, I'm probably gonna have a million things to do.