Actually God has already given every individuals a reasonable ability consisting of analytical, rational, logical, ethical, compassionate, etc. capabilities to solve real-life problems, independently. When some people give up or don't use these God-given capabilities, instead relying/believing on the written rules/dogmas/conventions/etc. designed/invented by others, sometimes on behalf of God's name, that could be really a real morality issue!
On abortion: imo, the emotion capability naturally given by God to every individuals of human beings should be given the highest priority for decisions, based on analytical results of scientific research, statistical analysis, medical professional rationality, psychological test/survey on individuals, etc.! Rather than merely a firm and fervent belief about morality based on some concepts/perceptions from any outdated books written by a few old-age humans! Without thoroughly considering/analysing the underlying reasons why that kind of outdated concepts/writings can be still believable in modern days! Q http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-threat-than-muslim-extremists.296192/page-14 Good points! A hen must prepare a setting combining with willingness and enough time in order to incubate her eggs. Not only her willingness involved is important, but also her feeling/attachment that is created/generated after a minimum time spent with the eggs for her desire wanting the eggs to become chicken. There should be a statistical data abut the psychology of a pregnancy regarding how much minimum/average time a potential mother would initially created/generated her feeling/attachment for the fertilized human egg. As a general guideline of standard time. There should be also a psychological test to confirm an individual's feeling/attachment before this standard time, to ensure sometimes reconsideration should be carefully made by a pregnant lady. Just 2 cents! UQ
On same-sex morality: One of the great leaders in the world's compassionate-love business now finally realised the kind of long-time suffering, unfair inequality and silent resilience experienced by some same-sex oriented human beings, like Turing who died aged 41 due to wrong medical/psychological treatments! Our technological world could become much more advanced today if he can live another 20 years longer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
Is Actually presupposition. Basing morality on an antecedents like God, not grounded in fact, have proved to invite decisions that are less than moral.
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-is-a-child-abuser.297007/page-3#post-4230754 On morality about physically punishing kids is allowed at home by some religious parents (who may not want teachers do the same), even the state laws and educators say No and shouldn't! Do people living in a culturally advanced and legally civilised country in the whole world really require more guns per person on average for a better protection of human liberty? Does more guns per person make people, both others and ourselves included, make people much more polite and gentle, safer and securer, willingly or fearfully or naturally or forcefully? Considering more powerful guns can be always obtained by other morally criminally minded! Do we unintentionally and unknowingly want to become equally one of them? Why? What are the most common sources of acts?
We can simply read God = Nature! I should have typed God/Nature, or even better GOD(=Totality Gods of various religions while removing all superstitions, as mentioned before)/Nature, but I was just lazy, as usual!
Except God isn't generally read that way. Your "better" doesn't work either, for once you remove superstition from religion and God, then poof...they've gone anyway. I appreciate by sitting on the fence that way you're trying to slot God in there alongside morality, but it really doesn't work. I think we agree morality is relative. The highest and strongest morals must be those which differentiate between right and wrong in their own rights, by their own sakes. Not by supposed dictate of an assumed and presupposed God. Handing morality off that way is always going to be less than completely moral and in my view is what's lazy. I would suggest taking personal and collective cultural responsibility for properly justified standards of morality, is the moral thing to do.
1. God=Nature, that was an ancient concept. Perhaps since existence of humans. Not new at all! However, some fundamentalists of (non-)believers or atheists may dislike this ancient old concept! 2. Basically all the major religions (organised institutions) nowadays are actually quite young relatively, comparing to our human history. 3. imo, morality is an orderly system among the individuals within a (sub)set of humans. They define their morals for common goodness. That, the expectations of goodness, hence laws and legal systems, can be dynamically changed according to their experience along their time line/span. New laws replace old laws. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft_Acts http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-17/northern-territory-to-ditch-their-witchcraft-law/4894086 Northern Territory government to repeal centuries-old witchcraft, tarot card law By Stephanie Smail, staff Updated August 18, 2013