A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.
You claim that you are in a position to evaluate God from a moral position.
From the definition above it would appear to be a subjective opinion.
Correct, it is a subjective opinion, because as you stated, it is impossible for us to make an objective statement of morality with regards to God, because he is unknowable. Thus, you either have no statements whatsoever, or a subjective opinion which you can compare to other subjective opinions to see at least what's the major consensus, or see if there is a trend, something. It gives you some knowledge, and isn't some knowledge better than none at all?
This opinion would be erroneous unless it was using the Revelation
as the guide. All human opinion is void, the Revelation determines all.
Well, as it is subjective, an opinion is inherently not perfect. Opinions are rarely 100% right or 100% wrong, but at least it's better than nothing. You saying his subjective opinion is invalid because it's not based on a book of revelations, which is objectively impossible to evaluate, makes little sense.
The Revelation itself determines what is "good and bad".
That's an interesting one. Think about this:
Is what is good, good, because God says it is?
Or does God know what is good, and tell us what is good?
If the first case is true, then God could declare killing children and raping innocent people good, and it would be good. In this case, where is morality? Where is the free will to choose? It's not morality anymore, 'good' simply describes what God wants us to do, whether or not it is morally good or not. Think it this way: if God commanded you to kill your entire family just like Abraham was ordered to kill his son, would you do it? If God commanded you, then it must be moral no? And if you object, why do you object?
If the second case is true, then good does not come from God, good exists apart from God, and God knows what it is. He then attempts to pass that wisdom onto us. But what says we ourselves can't know what is good, without necessarily needing God to tell us? I never heard God's voice, I have never felt his presence, but does that mean I am totally devoid of good without him? No. I hold doors open for people. I say please and thank you. I am polite and respectful. I am literally good without God.
I have no inbuilt ability to determine what is good and bad.
This is part of what I dislike so much about religion. It tells man we can't do anything but fail without God.
If you truly do not have any inbuilt ability to separate good from bad, and you constantly need God's wisdom for every little decision in your life, please, do remain a Christian. In the name of the safety of everyone around you, it's best you not lose your moral God, because if you did, you'd become a psychopath.
Or would you? Do you really ask God if you need to hold open the door for an old lady? Do you really need God to tell you to help up someone who fell? Do you really need God to tell you what to do to comfort a crying child?
If any one of those answers is not a definitive and 100% sure YES, then you do have at least some inbuilt morality.
Outside of Revelation, morality has ghost like properties.
I like all humans are taught from a young age some amalgamation of morality. Here is a list of some morals in modern society:
Laws are made to be broken of course.
Break the law but do not get caught.
I can only be as honest as I can afford to be.
Taxation is what I can avoid if possible paying.
Vengeance is mine, anyone who crosses me, i will get even.
I have to speed, i am running late.
Don't do as I do, do as I say, parents use this one.
It is ok if i break the rules, don't let me catch you breaking the rules.
Those are not morals a moral person would teach to his children. Allow me to correct the list according to what I, a godless person, would consider moral. Tell me where exactly you disagree.
Laws are made to allow people to function in society. They are made to protect us, but we have to be careful not to let them enslave us.
The law is a guide, but your morality should be the ultimate judge. It is against the law to use a firearm outside of the hunt in Canada, but if you have an illegal rifle and see a wolf attacking a child, the moral choice would be to save the child regardless of consequences.
You can be as honest as you want to be. You will have to face the consequences, positive and negative, of your honesty or lack thereof.
Taxes allow the government to regulate a country. However, the tax money is money I earned and I have a say in where it goes, and the government should spend it wisely.
Vengeance never got anyone anywhere. It's normal to dislike, even hate some people, but vengeance is not going to help.
As for parents saying 'Do as I say, not as I do', don't you think it would be because the parents want their children to be as perfect as possible, and they know they are not? In short, it should mean 'Just because I'm not perfect doesn't mean you should not try to be'.
Some rules can be broken, others not. It depends on the moral circumstance.
I agree with your rules, that it is indeed what society seems to be teaching children. However, if parents disagree with those morals, it is their duty and responsibility to properly educate their children and transmit them good morals.
In fact, we apply our morality to evaluate other people, but we do not apply it to ourselves.
True, some people don't like to be told they are not as good as they think. However, avoiding the problem never got anyone anywhere. The moral thing to do would be to face criticism and better oneself.
We elect politicians that we know will lie to us, when they lie and we catch them out. We get upset, what choice do we have?
Also true, we elect politicians whom we know will lie to us, or at least not hold all their promises. What is your alternative? Not voting? You can choose between which candidates would be least likely to lie, and those which represents your ideals.
We are hippocrites Mr traverse, we are faulty at best in our understanding of morality. Let alone the application of morality.
I once asked the guys at work what love was. No one was able to answer the question. They had no idea what it was!
True, we are hypocrites, some of us more than others. However, I sense that your position of 'man is not worthy enough' comes from the teachings of Christianity. I wish to say that God often demands perfection from human beings, and punishes men who cannot obtain that impossible to reach standard. In short, God is asking for men to be 100% perfect 100% of the time, when He plainly knows that He is setting us up for failure, then punishes men when they do fail.
I don't think men are perfect, far from it. I don't think anything is perfect. Your computer is not perfect. Medicine is not perfect. Your clothes are not perfect. Should we throw them all out? Of course not!
To be fair to your coworkers, love is an extremely complex emotion. Is love moral? Not necessarily. One can love to burn ants with a magnifying glass. I know I did as a kid. One can love sex. Is that moral when you reduce half of mankind to little more than a pleasure object to give you pleasure? Love and morality often overlap, but not always.
Inside of Revelation, there is legal representation for those who do not claim to be good. Those who submit to the revelation are reconciled.
Those who do not submit, will be forced to submit later on.
A magnificent example of goodness and free will.
Once again, your manifestation of morality is useless and void.
It is much better than your position, which says that is is impossible to determine objectively if something is morally good or not. You are using a morally subjective opinion to determine what is good in the Bible, and then using the Bible to justify your morality, while using the Bible to tell Mr. Traverse his subjective morality is useless and void. I find that curious.
You can claim to have a morality, but I must insist on what the source is.
Unless you name the source, I find it difficult to understand what you mean.
Human experience and love. I learned morality much the same way you did, when I was growing up. Had I been born to a violent couple who disrespected each other and all the other people, no doubt I would be a rather immoral person. You were taught the morals of the Bible. If you were born in Egypt, you would have been taught the morals of the Koran. You would have very different morals then.
Based simply on that, one can understand that morals are part of a society's customs and traditions, and that different societies and different customs produce different moralities. That is exactly the case as we see in the world.
According to Revelation you were given life by God as a gift.
According to other Revelations, you could have been given life according to Sotuknang and Spider Woman according to the Hopi, Bor's son according to the Norse (interestingly enough, an ice giant built himself an ark to save himself from a flood that drowned all other ice giants. Familiar?), the Japanese Shinto gods Izanagi and Izanami, by the Self (literally that nothing became something) according to Indian tradition, and many many many more. Practically all of which these revelations are contained in Holy books. You can find out that there are about as many creation stories as there are tribes and societies that formed. The story of YWHW started as such, survived and changed over time to become the Christianity we know today.
If you value your own life, I would submit to the Revelation.
I do value my life, and I value everyone else's life also, and every living creature's life on top of that. I value the life of the ecosystems and the life of our planet. Revelation has little to say about non-human life, except that some Homo sapiens should not be considered human based on their skin colour or their beliefs. Science showed me how all life is related and integrated in the web of life, balanced in delicate ecosystems, and that every action we take against the environment will come back at us sooner or later. I think the revelation I have had from science is more worthwhile than what I have found about God's revelation.
