Michael547:

Who has the right to determine that murder is bad?

Its simple. Whatever causes harm to a person is obviously bad and wrong. If lying causes harm to someone, then its obviously bad. Same as covetousness. Also if I don't feel good about an action (like murder) then its bad. You don't need a god or deity to give laws about them. Besides those gods/deities have been known to support evil, so we cannot depend on them for our morality

jaephoenix:

Its simple. Whatever causes harm to a person is obviously bad and wrong. If lying causes harm to someone, then its obviously bad. Same as covetousness. Also if I don't feel good about an action (like murder) then its bad. You don't need a god or deity to give laws about them. Besides those gods/deities have been known to support evil, so we cannot depend on them for our morality

Who determined that whatever causes harm to a person is bad and wrong?

Don't you think that is your personal idea?

Michael547:


Who determined that whatever causes harm to a person is bad and wrong?

Don't you think that is your personal idea?

If I pull out a gun and shoot you, would that be nice to u? Would you ask to be shot again? Yes or no?

jaephoenix:

If I pull out a gun and shoot you, would that be nice to u? Would you ask to be shot again? Yes or no?

Shooting me will not be nice to me.....but it may be nice to you.

Michael547:

Shooting me will not be nice to me.....but it may be nice to you.

The point is this: don't do what is bad to another person. In this scenario, u were hurt/dead and its bad for u. Therefore it is bad universally, whether for me or another person.
This is the origin of morals

jaephoenix:

The point is this: don't do what is bad to another person. In this scenario, u were hurt/dead and its bad for u. Therefore it is bad universally, whether for me or another person.
This is the origin of morals

Baba this is your personal opinion.....
there is nothing like a universal bad. Something is bad to me does not mean it is bad to you.

Michael547:

Baba this is your personal opinion.....
there is nothing like a universal bad. Something is bad to me does not mean it is bad to you.

Well its not just my personal opinion. Its how the ancient man determined morals used by them in their society

jaephoenix:

Well its not just my personal opinion. Its how the ancient man determined morals used by them in their society

Who is this ancient man that determined what will be universal good and bad?

Michael547:

Who is this ancient man that determined what will be universal good and bad?

The Neantherthals for example. Homo Hominids, Homo Erectus etc. U want their names, and phone numbers too

jaephoenix:

The Neantherthals for example. Homo Hominids, Homo Erectus etc. U want their names, and phone numbers too

So where is the document that these ancient men agreed and wrote down what was universally bad and good?

Michael547:

So where is the document that these ancient men agreed and wrote down what was universally bad and good?

Only if you had even researched on the history and origin of ancient morality, your ignorance would have been cured. If you want articles and research on these, just tell me and I'll oblige u
But its amazing a Christian would demand documents/evidence from me but believe wholeheartedly what was written in the bible which has not been proven to be legit

jaephoenix:

Only if you had even researched on the history and origin of ancient morality, your ignorance would have been cured. If you want articles and research on these, just tell me and I'll oblige u
But its amazing a Christian would demand documents/evidence from me but believe wholeheartedly what was written in the bible which has not been proven to be legit

Oga bring out the research on when all the ancient people agreed and wrote down the universal standard on what is good and evil.

Jokerman:
Why didn't the good Satan advice them to eat the fruit if life instead of fruit of knowledge, if Satan so loves man?

I believe you are saying a different thing, I never mentioned Satan in my question

Jokerman:
Why didn't the good Satan advice them to eat the fruit if life instead of fruit of knowledge, if Satan so loves man?

Just saw this, why didn't Enli allow man to eat of the tree of life after they ate the fruit of knowledge.

Is it a crime to have knowledge.??

jaephoenix:

The Neantherthals for example. Homo Hominids, Homo Erectus etc. U want their names, and phone numbers too

The neanderthals lived on earth before Adam, they were not created by Enki, Enli to have their nature but they were genetically modified from apes, chimpanzees.
Remember evolution says humans came from apes- the erectus. They ain't wrong.

These Gods added their essence to these animals to form the neanderthals.

mekuso89:
Does it mean that God didn't know that Adam and Eve wasn't going to mess things up in the first place?

Baby Christian

Truuth:
Just saw this, why didn't Enli allow man to eat of the tree of life after they ate the fruit of knowledge.

Is it a crime to have knowledge.??

No, but he was a deceiver.

He deceived man to gain knowledge but lose his power, position, authority and soul forever...

But thanks to Jesus who has restored it.

It is called freewill, in the book of Genesis, God said, let us make men in our image and likeness. That part means , people who are free to make their own decisions.

Satan had the same freedom until he failed, and he was banished from heaven.

Adam had freedom, he would not have failed if not for the devil.

The tree was there as part of God's plan,
There is the tree of life, as well as the one for good and evil.

God did not set them up, he was training them into maturity and understanding(this is a gradual process). If they listened to him, they would not have failed.

These trees we are talking about was made to be consumed by men at certain stages in our lives.
After Adam failed, God locked the garden and put a guard on it. Note that he did not destroy it. This same tree is now revealed in the book of revelation, this time (the bible says), It is TO HIM WHO OVERCOMES. this confirms the fact that it is made for men and it will be given to them. I hope this helps

Truuth:
The neanderthals lived on earth before Adam, they were not created by Enki, Enli to have their nature but they were genetically modified from apes, chimpanzees.
Remember evolution says humans came from apes- the erectus. They ain't wrong.

These Gods added their essence to these animals to form the neanderthals.

What's your source for all these tales

Michael547:

Oga bring out the research on when all the ancient people agreed and wrote down the universal standard on what is good and evil.

Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750 BCE), known as the Code of Hammurabi. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century BCE) on Mount Sinai might be considered another example. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another.

That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics is not an independent field of study but rather a branch of theology (see moral theology).

There is some difficulty, already known to Plato, with the view that morality was created by a divine power. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that, if this were the case, one could not say that the gods approve of such actions because they are good. Why then do they approve of them? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some standards of right or wrong that are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods. Modern philosophers have generally accepted Plato’s argument, because the alternative implies that if, for example, the gods had happened to approve of torturing children and to disapprove of helping one’s neighbours, then torture would have been good and neighbourliness bad.

Problems of divine origin
A modern theist (see theism) might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.


Source https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy

For a long time humans have done things differently. Around two million years ago the genus Homo emerged, with larger brains and new skills in making stone tools. Soon after, a global cooling and drying period led to a proliferation of terrestrial monkeys, which competed with Homo for many resources. Early humans needed new options. One alternative involved scavenging carcasses killed by other animals. But then, according to an account from anthropologist Mary C. Stiner of the University of Arizona, some early humans—the best guess is Homo heidelbergensis some 400,000 years ago—began obtaining most of their food through active collaboration in which individuals formed joint goals to work together in hunting and gathering. Indeed, the collaboration became obligate (compulsory) in that it was essential to their survival. Individuals became interdependent with one another in immediate and urgent ways to obtain their daily sustenance.
Many features of human morality could have grown out of simple reciprocal practices such as the mutual removal of parasites from awkward places. Suppose a person wanted to have the lice in his hair picked out and was willing in return to remove lice from someone else’s hair. The person must choose his partner carefully. If he helps everyone indiscriminately, he will find himself delousing others without getting his own lice removed. To avoid this, he must learn to distinguish between those who return favours and those who do not. In making this distinction, he would be separating reciprocators from nonreciprocators and, in the process, developing crude notions of fairness and of cheating. He will naturally strengthen his ties to those who reciprocate, and bonds of friendship and loyalty, with a consequent sense of obligation to assist, will result. Research in psychology and the neurosciences has thrown light on the role of specific parts of the brain in moral judgment and behaviour, suggesting that emotions are strongly involved in moral judgments, particularly those that are formed rapidly and intuitively.

Copied

sunnyfats:
It is called freewill, in the book of Genesis, God said, let us make men in our image and likeness. That part means , people who are free to make their own decisions.

Satan had the same freedom until he failed, and he was banished from heaven.

Adam had freedom, he would not have failed if not for the devil.

The tree was there as part of God's plan,
There is the tree of life, as well as the one for good and evil.

God did not set them up, he was training them into maturity and understanding(this is a gradual process). If they listened to him, they would not have failed.

These trees we are talking about was made to be consumed by men at certain stages in our lives.
After Adam failed, God locked the garden and put a guard on it. Note that he did not destroy it. This same tree is now revealed in the book of revelation, this time (the bible says), It is TO HIM WHO OVERCOMES. this confirms the fact that it is made for men and it will be given to them. I hope this helps

Did Yahweh know Adam was gonna fail?

Michael547:

Oga bring out the research on when all the ancient people agreed and wrote down the universal standard on what is good and evil.

They want to boycott the Bible yet they want to establish morals, abeg where is the document that people agreed on globally that they're willing to abide by the code?

jaephoenix:

Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi (died c. 1750 BCE), known as the Code of Hammurabi. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) account of God’s giving the Ten Commandments to Moses (flourished 14th–13th century BCE) on Mount Sinai might be considered another example. In the dialogue Protagoras by Plato (428/427–348/347 BCE), there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who were physically no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another.

That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics is not an independent field of study but rather a branch of theology (see moral theology).

There is some difficulty, already known to Plato, with the view that morality was created by a divine power. In his dialogue Euthyphro, Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that, if this were the case, one could not say that the gods approve of such actions because they are good. Why then do they approve of them? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some standards of right or wrong that are independent of the likes and dislikes of the gods. Modern philosophers have generally accepted Plato’s argument, because the alternative implies that if, for example, the gods had happened to approve of torturing children and to disapprove of helping one’s neighbours, then torture would have been good and neighbourliness bad.

Problems of divine origin
A modern theist (see theism) might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.


Source https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy

For a long time humans have done things differently. Around two million years ago the genus Homo emerged, with larger brains and new skills in making stone tools. Soon after, a global cooling and drying period led to a proliferation of terrestrial monkeys, which competed with Homo for many resources. Early humans needed new options. One alternative involved scavenging carcasses killed by other animals. But then, according to an account from anthropologist Mary C. Stiner of the University of Arizona, some early humans—the best guess is Homo heidelbergensis some 400,000 years ago—began obtaining most of their food through active collaboration in which individuals formed joint goals to work together in hunting and gathering. Indeed, the collaboration became obligate (compulsory) in that it was essential to their survival. Individuals became interdependent with one another in immediate and urgent ways to obtain their daily sustenance.
Many features of human morality could have grown out of simple reciprocal practices such as the mutual removal of parasites from awkward places. Suppose a person wanted to have the lice in his hair picked out and was willing in return to remove lice from someone else’s hair. The person must choose his partner carefully. If he helps everyone indiscriminately, he will find himself delousing others without getting his own lice removed. To avoid this, he must learn to distinguish between those who return favours and those who do not. In making this distinction, he would be separating reciprocators from nonreciprocators and, in the process, developing crude notions of fairness and of cheating. He will naturally strengthen his ties to those who reciprocate, and bonds of friendship and loyalty, with a consequent sense of obligation to assist, will result. Research in psychology and the neurosciences has thrown light on the role of specific parts of the brain in moral judgment and behaviour, suggesting that emotions are strongly involved in moral judgments, particularly those that are formed rapidly and intuitively.

Copied

Oga what is the universally accepted morality that all humans follow today that was created and written down by humans?
I am not asking you about any divine morality story.

Michael547:

Oga what is the universally accepted morality that all humans follow today that was created and written down by humans?
I am not asking you about any divine morality story.

Like I pointed out earlier, morality is relative. What was morally good 100 years ago may not be the same now. Also what is morally good in Japan may not be so in Nigeria. It all varies. There is very few internationally accepted morally codes presently

jaephoenix:

Like I pointed out earlier, morality is relative. What was morally good 100 years ago may not be the same now. Also what is morally good in Japan may not be so in Nigeria. It all varies. There is very few internationally accepted morally codes presently

So you see yourself? You are back to square one.
When you said killing a human is bad and I told you it was your personal opinion, you were arguing up and down.
Can you now name the few moral code present in the world today that is agreed by all humans on earth?

Michael547:

So you see yourself? You are back to square one.
When you said killing a human is bad and I told you it was your personal opinion, you were arguing up and down.
Can you now name the few moral code present in the world today that is agreed by all humans on earth?

Murder, lying is universally unacceptable.
Please name which culture these values are embraced

jaephoenix:

Murder, lying is universally unacceptable.
Please name which culture these values are embraced

If lying and murder is not embraced by people in the the world, why is it a daily occurrence all over the world?

Jokerman:


No, but he was a deceiver.

He deceived man to gain knowledge but lose his power, position, authority and soul forever...

But thanks to Jesus who has restored it.

You are not getting it

Man now has knowledge to know Good and Evil, knowledge is not evil so why not let them eat the fruit of life with their knowledge.

Because man can decide not to serve God, since they already are like the Gods, knowing good and evil.

It was game plan by Enlil. The whole concept of hell and heaven is to scare man to serve God.

Enki that gave man knowledge.

jaephoenix:

What's your source for all these tales

You don't read, and don't make research.

Michael547:

If lying and murder is not embraced by people in the the world, why is it a daily occurrence all over the world?

He thought when people say something is bad that means they're fully convinced and they're not going to do the same thing even though it's the only way out when they find themselves in tight situations.
So when people sit down together studying God's word discussing how to apply it and help one another in seeing reasons why its inspired by God for the good of all they want to discard such activity yet he feels everyone have agreed on codes of conduct.
Ọmọ atheists use to amaze me walahi talahi.
If people don't sit together discussing on the benefits of God's word how will it sink down their hearts as the right thing to do?

jaephoenix:

Did Yahweh know Adam was gonna fail?

You can pick any copy of the Bible to read this perhaps it will help you answer the question!

Then he said: “Do not harm the boy, and do not do anything at all to him, for now I do know that you are God-fearing because you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me. Genesis 22:12

jaephoenix:

Did Yahweh know Adam was gonna fail?

God has the ultimate power
He can foresee and foretell
He also has freewill

We don't see his demonstrating his powers all the time
He equally does not use his ability to foresee things
Everything he does, he does so when he wants to