Having the 'divine judge' to 'help one keep oneself on the strai(gh)t and narrow' doesn't make god the source of the morality, or necessary to it. By the same token, the laws against murder, and punishment under those laws, do not define the morality or immorality of killing, they just enforce it using collective means. Society collectively (or the majority of individuals in it individually, or the leaders individually or collectively) determined/defined/believed that murder is wrong enough to warrant state action. Having murder be banned by law does not cause or define or create the immorality of murder, except to the extent that personal consequences of an action are morally relevant. Nor, in my mind, does social consensus NECESSARILY make actions to enforce a law moral. I consider drug laws immoral, because though drug use and sale may not always be moral, per se, they are less immoral than using force to prevent them. Use of force, even to enforce moral or legal rules, is a necessary evil, not a good, and has to be balanced morally against the acts they (actually) prevent.
By the same token, that 'god' judged killing as wrong in the bible doesn't necessarily create the immorality of killing, it just necessarily enforces it. Morality could exist through social definition of right and wrong, or as a part of the natural or supernatural universe separate from (or bound to - that isn't ruled out) the existence of a godhead, which may be accessed logically or empirically.
It could even be that morality is binding on a god, depending on your beliefs(priors?). (Eg. I believe morality is sufficiently separate from godhood that, even if god, by whatever name or definition, exists, his status as 'creator of the universe and of man' and his power to force his will on everyone would be insufficient basis for him to overrule the moral status of murder to say (for example) 'killing this baby is ok, I command it' - he could order this, but it would be wrong of him to do so. He would be morally culpable just like any other morally-conscious being. IOW, the biblical flood would have been an act of extreme evil, had it occured.)
To Jacob's point, I submit that the beliefs of the religious simply reflect the moral understanding of the social group the religious belong to. Fundamentalist morality reflects an social difference - a social group where the understanding of morality is different from that of social groups consising of the less fundamentalist churches. "Using drugs is bad" isn't lifted from the bible, it is a social norm which has been retrofitted onto Christian belief by some denominations. An even better example are the denominations which ban alcohol, despite Christ explicitly turning water to wine for his followers. Rationalization about 'it was grape juice, not wine' simply demonstrates how moral understanding is projected onto religion, rather than flowing from it. (See also the scrambling to justify belief that homosexuality isn't wrong while remaining Christian believers in a bible which is fairly explicit in saying the opposite, by more liberal denominations.)
Having the 'divine judge' to 'help one keep oneself on the strai(gh)t and narrow' doesn't make god the source of the morality, or necessary to it. By the same token, the laws against murder, and punishment under those laws, do not define the morality or immorality of killing, they just enforce it using collective means. Society collectively (or the majority of individuals in it individually, or the leaders individually or collectively) determined/defined/believed that murder is wrong enough to warrant state action. Having murder be banned by law does not cause or define or create the immorality of murder, except to the extent that personal consequences of an action are morally relevant. Nor, in my mind, does social consensus NECESSARILY make actions to enforce a law moral. I consider drug laws immoral, because though drug use and sale may not always be moral, per se, they are less immoral than using force to prevent them. Use of force, even to enforce moral or legal rules, is a necessary evil, not a good, and has to be balanced morally against the acts they (actually) prevent.
By the same token, that 'god' judged killing as wrong in the bible doesn't necessarily create the immorality of killing, it just necessarily enforces it. Morality could exist through social definition of right and wrong, or as a part of the natural or supernatural universe separate from (or bound to - that isn't ruled out) the existence of a godhead, which may be accessed logically or empirically.
It could even be that morality is binding on a god, depending on your beliefs(priors?). (Eg. I believe morality is sufficiently separate from godhood that, even if god, by whatever name or definition, exists, his status as 'creator of the universe and of man' and his power to force his will on everyone would be insufficient basis for him to overrule the moral status of murder to say (for example) 'killing this baby is ok, I command it' - he could order this, but it would be wrong of him to do so. He would be morally culpable just like any other morally-conscious being. IOW, the biblical flood would have been an act of extreme evil, had it occured.)
To Jacob's point, I submit that the beliefs of the religious simply reflect the moral understanding of the social group the religious belong to. Fundamentalist morality reflects an social difference - a social group where the understanding of morality is different from that of social groups consising of the less fundamentalist churches. "Using drugs is bad" isn't lifted from the bible, it is a social norm which has been retrofitted onto Christian belief by some denominations. An even better example are the denominations which ban alcohol, despite Christ explicitly turning water to wine for his followers. Rationalization about 'it was grape juice, not wine' simply demonstrates how moral understanding is projected onto religion, rather than flowing from it. (See also the scrambling to justify belief that homosexuality isn't wrong while remaining Christian believers in a bible which is fairly explicit in saying the opposite, by more liberal denominations.)