What is sin?

Sin is the willful choice to disobey God. When we choose to break a promise, when we cuss someone out, when we physically assault someone, when we fiddle about with someone else's spouse or go fornicating, when we bring harm to children and direct our abuse at anyone, we sin.

Sin is the opposite of God's character and purpose. It is the opposite of doing good. And it is willful.

There are those out there who probably believe that if Adam and Eve weren't tempted, they wouldn't have sinned. The problem is that this belief is based on the fact that a foreign element (i.e. Satan) was involved. But the problem was not that Satan spoke to them; he tries to attack everyone. The issue is, why did they listen? God specifically warned them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or they would die. Even if they didn't understand what the word "die" meant, it was obvious that something very, very bad would happen if they disobeyed. And... they chose to do just that; disobey. Instead of trusting God, they chose to listen to the serpent in the garden. And all of creation has been paying the price ever since.

The blame can't be all pinned on the devil. The devil tempted Adam and Eve, yes, but the question is, why didn't they trust God instead of (to their eyes) some random snake? The devil's words were in direct contradiction to what God said. No, Adam and Eve didn't instantly drop dead upon eating the forbidden fruit, but they died spiritually, becoming aware of their just separation from their Creator, and they were doomed to die physically from that moment on too. God took pity on them and covered their nakedness and allowed them to live out their days, but something drastic had to be done to deal with sin.

Some might point to the system of sacrifices during the years of the Israelite confederacy, monarchy, and dual kingdoms as being the answer, but this has its issues, as this link makes quite clear;

Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices. The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is kaphar, which has the idea of “covering,” not total removal. This word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be covered with pitch.

...Tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by Jewish priests for centuries, the spilling of their blood vividly illustrated the deadly seriousness of sin. However, these sacrifices were essentially like a bandage, only acting as a covering for sin. They did not, and could not, remove sin, as Hebrews 10:4 clearly states.

They also pointed forward in time to the only One that could remove sin—Jesus Christ who shed His precious blood to accomplish that purpose.

Sin is not merely a concept but a reality. We've all done immoral things and all deserve judgment, and greatly so, having inherited it from Adam and Eve. But God graciously acts so that this might not be the end of it.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,

[b]Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
But a body didst thou prepare for me;
6
In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:

7
Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me)

To do thy will, O God.

8 Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), 9 then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 [c]By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every [d]priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: 12 but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for [e]sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said,

16
[f]This is the covenant that [g]I will make with them

After those days, saith the Lord:
I will put my laws on their heart,
And upon their mind also will I write them;

then saith he,

17
And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Above from the ASV version, which is public domain, at biblegateway.com.)

Sin is evil, and its effects - on the human soul, upon the mind, upon the body, upon relationships and everything humans do - are terrible and awful to behold. But the Good News is, God is not done yet - with us, or with the universe.

The Lord Jesus Christ came into this world to live the sinless life we could not, so that, as both God and a perfect sacrifice without blemish, He could one and for all time destroy sin through His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection from the dead. All who love and willingly submit to Him can be saved from the eternal torment we deserve for offending a Holy and infinite God. He continues to spread His message day by day throughout the world, and there is no defeat in Him. Or, as abideinchrist.com says;

The sacrificial death of Christ turns away the wrath of God from everyone who believes on Christ as their Savior. He is our propitiation; He is our mercy seat; His death alone is all-sufficient to save. Christ is the mercy seat who was sprinkled with His own blood.

Jesus Christ was the priest who offered up the perfect sacrifice of Himself on the cross for our sins. He died in our place (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph. 5:2, 25; Matt. 20:28; Rom. 5:6, 8).

The Lord is coming back, on a day and hour we do not know. On Judgment Day, sin will be destroyed utterly, and for those who trust in His death and resurrection, there will no longer be pain, tears, or misery (Revelation 21:4). For those who believe, there is an enduring hope, despite the existence of evil now, that it will be destroyed in the end.

For now, the hand of repentance and forgiveness is still out there for anyone who would grasp it while there is still time to do so. I pray that the audience does not simply brush it away.

May the Lord Jesus save, watch over, and guide you all.

7355022
I once heard an interesting sermon where the vicar likened sinning (and repenting) to taking a wrong turn at a roundabout and trying again. The metaphor is obvious; sin is not an instant game over screen, it's going in the wrong direction and needing to turn back onto the right road.

7355022
God bless all of those that find comfort in Christ and seek his guidance and God bless you for finding the words to help those in need!

7355022
Is it ok if we continue our conversation here?

7358137

Ya.

7358353
I don’t want to get too bogged down writing essays on the bible back and fourth, so I only responded to parts of what you said. If there’s anything I didn’t respond to that you think deserves attention, please let me know.

Slavery is indeed terrible, however, it was controlled and mitigated by the Old Testament laws, and later by New Testament commands to love your neighbor (including master or slave) as oneself.

Yes, I could write a far more moral book than your god. All I have to do is take the bible and add a commandment (from god or Jesus) saying not to own other people as property! Controlling and mitigating it is allowing it. You don’t get points for controlling and mitigating spousal abuse or child rape, same with slavery. The lessor of two evils is still evil.

We ought to come to see that enslaving our fellow man, if we hold to the idea of the law of godly love, it is in contradiction to that love.

Specific instructions overrule general instructions. The Old Testament allows for slavery and the New Testament tells slaves to obey your Christian masters, even the cruel ones. If I’m wrong, please share the verse that specifically outlaws owning another human being (including women) as property.

We have to remember that at this time, slavery was the norm, not the exception. Almost every society had slaves;

Agreed, which is why it’s perfectly reasonable that the bible (if it’s a man made book) allows for slavery: its a product of its time. If it’s the perfect word of an all knowing, unchanging, just god, then there’s no way it could allow for slavery.

the Bible actually bans abuse of slaves;
“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money (Exodus 21:20-21, ESV)." In the latter sentence, if homicidal intentions could not be proven, then the master was given the benefit of the doubt, but the very idea of someone being punished or even executed for murdering a slave would have been shocking to most slave societies.

You and I have very different definitions of the word abuse. If I beat someone just enough that their injuries don’t result in death, or it takes them 4 days to die, would you classify that as abuse? I would.

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death (Exodus 21:16, ESV)." This actually makes the kind of slavery in the old American South illegal, as kidnapping someone to put them in chains is punishable by death here.

I have several thoughts here. First: I never brought up American slavery. I’m objecting to slavery as defined by the bible, specifically ‘owning another human being as property’. Second: the American South used these verses to justify their slave trade, so thousands of christians back then would have disagreed with you. Third: the slavery of the American South is absolutely legal under biblical law: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.” -Leviticus 25:44 NIV
I think we both agree that the bible allows slavery, something that is absolutely immoral. We are both more moral than your holy book.

As for rape, there is no such support as you claim. You might respond by pointing out Deuteronomy 22:28-29; "If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, the man who raped her is to give the young woman’s father fifty silver shekels, and she will become his wife because he violated her. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives." But notice that there is an obligation for the rapist to pay the victim.

No, that’s not true. The rapist must pay the victims father, because the father owns the daughter. The victim is forced to marry her rapist.

Additionally, her father could refuse; according to Exodus 22:16-17, "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." The father could say no to the marriage, in which case the rapist had to pay the dowry price anyway.

Yes, the father has final say over the fate of the daughter. This is immoral. It is understandable in a primitive culture, but it is unacceptable coming from a perfectly enlightened and just source.
For rape I was actually referring to (among other verses) Numbers 31:17-18 “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (NIV) There is no way that many (if not all) of the soldiers would not take that to mean the young girls are their’s to take to bed, with or without consent. You can point out that it doesn’t explicitly say to rape the girls, it only says to keep them for yourself after killing their whole family. That is still very immoral, and that’s my point.

Genocide is last on this list, and it is admittedly a difficult topic to approach.

I agree. Before getting into any example from the bible, can you explain to me how any context or situation would make genocide acceptable (let alone moral)?

Moreover, what we know of the pagan peoples in that region, their religion was horribly repugnant; human sacrifices, including babies; promotion of ritual prosititution; sexual deviancy, including orgies, as part of worship, among others.

So? Forgetting that some of these are hallmarks of the Christian god as well, this is pure whataboutism. Some of these things are bad too. Does that make it ok to kill them all? I would say no. Does it make it ok to kill them all when you are the reason they are that way AND you are all powerful and could do literally any other option imaginable? Definitely not.

More to follow!

7358353

I’m a humanist, so I care about the well-being of conscious creatures.
Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems (partial definition upon entering the word into Google.)

I agree with the value, common needs, and rational parts. But I object to the goodness of human beings without a preset moral code given by an Almighty Creator.

I said potential goodness, but I can see where you got that understanding. Still, why does an almighty creator add any weight to a moral code?

The problem is, without an Almighty, pre-existing Creator to give morals, then... where does morality come from? Majority opinion? Individual opinion? Something made up by the state? Or does morality exist only as a concept and not as a set of standards to live up to?

None of the above, but I’ll get to that in a moment.

What is so good about god? How did you determine that god is the good one and Satan is the bad one?
Look at the world around you. Why would an evil god make a world full of life? The only reason I can think of would be to torture that life. And yet, while unmistakable acts of evil are committed, the world as a whole is beautiful and functional, and many people are able to live without any form of actual torture in their lives. If God were evil, then why does life in general thrive?

Obviously I’m not convinced that a god exists, one would need to demonstrate that before the case could be made that he is the reason life exists. Forgetting that for a moment, crediting god with creating life and saying that’s why he’s good doesn’t cut it. Like you pointed out, maybe he did it to torture people. Another reason, maybe he’s a trickster god and life is a great big joke. I don’t know. What I do know is that the book credited to him is not good, it is actually quite evil in parts (as we saw above).

And why would standards of morality/virtue exist at all, much less be commanded by God?

Good question, I’m getting there.

And why is the world, indeed the universe, so well made, instead of the tortuous mass an evil deity would make?

I reject the assumption in this question due to a lack of evidence. We have no reason to think that the universe was made by any intelligence. Even if I grant you that for the sake of argument, the state of the universe doesn’t tell us anything about the personality of the creator on it’s own. We would need to view several universes that were made by varying degrees of good/evil deities and compare them to our own in order to judge the nature of our creator.

And, if you'll forgive me for yet another question, why do most stories we tell and read (to ourselves and our children) end with evil defeated and good triumphant?

That’s an easy question. Because we are a social species that has evolved to tell stories. We have an innate sense of fairness that can be found in all social species (chimpanzees, wolves, dolphins, etc...).

Furthermore, why assume that Satan can be good? His first recorded act was to disguise himself as a snake to decieve Adam and Eve into disobeying God (Gen. 3).

I don’t assume or argue he is good, I’m just wondering how you determined he was evil. If everything happens according to gods plan then the snake was part of that plan, so to call the snake evil seems unfair at the very least. The snake (the bible doesn’t actually call it Satan) told Adam and Eve the truth, which is something god did not do.

According to the Bible, in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God had told Adam and Eve:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
— Genesis 2:16-17
But the serpent (who may or may not have been Satan in disguise) opined with exegetical cunning:
Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
— Genesis 3:4-5
Naturally enough, they ate the fruit, that one hopes was the tastiest one in history. Surprisingly, the serpent had actually told the truth — because they did not die "in the day" that they ate.

Source

And here's another thing; why would an evil god send his son to die in order to redeem his creation? Yet we see the God of the Bible do just this in the Gospels.

Here’s a better question, why would a good god require a human sacrifice to forgive humanity for being exactly the way he made us? He’s god, why can’t he just forgive us? Why do we even need to be forgiven? Is the concept of inherited crimes moral? Is it fair that I be punished for my ancestors actions? Is the original sin of eating a fruit actually evil? Sure it goes against gods law, but who put him in charge?

Now I’ve skipped some of what you posted, and I have a reason for that. IMO there are 2 questions here: is god good? and what is the standard of good?

You make a lot of arguments that god is good, but I think they are unnecessary. If god is the arbiter of what is good then you don’t need to appeal to my sense of justice to argue for his goodness. He is good by definition. Sin and evil is synonymous. If, on the other hand, good and evil is independent of god, then what god has to say is just his subjective opinion. It might still be the case that god is good, but one would have to show that gods actions are good by comparing him to the objective standard.

So then what is the objective basis of morality if it’s not based in gods word?
That’s coming in the next post, probably tomorrow night. Goodnight!

7358353
So what is morality? Morality refers to the well being of conscious creatures. Reason and empathy are all that are needed to make objective moral judgments using well being as the standard. Morality is therefore a subjective valuing of well-being and is based on the objective physical laws of reality.

It is a subjective decision to value well being. If someone says ‘I don’t value well being’ then they have removed themselves from the conversation. There is no imperative to value well being, but if someone doesn’t value well being then they are likely dead. We are the descendants of mammals that valued their own well being. Someone might point to this as a weakness of secular morality, but it’s a weakness that isn’t solved by divine command theory. If god is the arbiter of morality then it’s just his subjective opinion that he’s sharing. It’s my subjective decision to care about what he has to say. If someone says ‘I don’t value gods opinion’ then they have removed themselves from the conversation (until a god is demonstrated to exist, we are talking about claims in a book, so I’m not going to loose any sleep over removing myself from that convo). There is no imperative to value what god has to say. Unlike valuing well being, there is no demonstrable consequence to not valuing gods word. If god existed, then there might be the consequence of missing heaven and going to hell. If that’s the only reason you accept gods word, then it’s just a might makes right situation and we are all basically trapped in a celestial North Korea. One can still choose to not care about gods word and suffer the consequences (torture, etc...). The foundation of morality is subjective no matter what.

Empathy is next. We recognize that there are other minds that experience things in this shared reality. We share space and resources, so in our own self interest it is better to work towards the wellbeing of the common good. Because our brains are wired for empathy, we feel good doing acts of kindness without expecting compensation (like giving gifts to loved ones for example). It is also beneficial to reinforce behaviour that might benefit us. I want to live in a society where people don’t randomly kill me, so it’s rational to promote that behaviour by not walking around killing others. Our standard of living goes up when we trust each other.

Once we have well-being as a foundation, we can make objective moral discernment’s using reason. Is it conducive to the well being of an individual to lop off their head? No. That’s not subjective opinion, it’s objective fact. Morality is complicated, how do we balance the needs of the individual with groups and the society at large? There is no single right answer, but the system of scientifically examining results of actions to determine their impact on the well-being of others is how we better understand morality. The project of building a culture and society that maximizes well being is something that only we can do, and it’s going to take all the effort and innovation we have to do it! We can think something is right and be objectively wrong, like how people were wrong to think slavery was ok in the past. As we gain more data, we learn more and improve.

There’s more we could talk about, but I think that’s a good start. I included 2 videos below, about 50 mins between the two of them, for more information. To tie this back to the OP, sin is simply gods subjective opinion and it’s every thinking agent’s subjective decision to care about it or not. If god exists but isn’t a humanist then I don’t give a 💩 what he has to say. According to the bible, he is not a humanist. He has committed genocide on a scale that would embarrass the most ambitious of human serial killers. He is more concerned with us worshiping other gods then not owning people as property. You can find good and accurate things in the bible (the page numbers are very accurate for example), but in no way is it a moral book.

Please let me know if you have any questions or criticism for this moral system. Hopefully the reason I and many non believers reject sin and the pro-ported morality of the bible makes more sense now.

7360863

Ah, I see you are doing the same old script you did with me, with the main problem with your reasoning relying on this particular parts:

Yes, I could write a far more moral book than your god
We are both more moral than your holy book.

You must have a very big ego if you think you can write a better "Bible", or that you're more moral than The Bible, especially when you are ignoring everything else involving writing The Bible.

If it’s the perfect word of an all knowing, unchanging, just god, then there’s no way it could allow for slavery.

Based on what? You are judging the deeds done in the past as if the present could've been implemented back then. That's false.

Controlling and mitigating it is allowing it.

This is a bad reasoning, especially ignoring the fact that selling one self was a way to pay debts back then. You focus so much on saying that it's immoral for allowing it (using the fallacy of "presentism") that you ignore the details of it.

You and I have very different definitions of the word abuse. If I beat someone just enough that their injuries don’t result in death, or it takes them 4 days to die, would you classify that as abuse? I would.

Today? It would be abuse. Back then? No.

I’m objecting to slavery as defined by the bible, specifically ‘owning another human being as property’. Second: the American South used these verses to justify their slave trade, so thousands of christians back then would have disagreed with you. Third: the slavery of the American South is absolutely legal under biblical law: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.”

First: The Bible allowed the slaves to be free, heck, the Israelites weren't allowed to keep other israelites as slaves forever.
Second: The "Slave" Bible omitted a lot of stuff from the Old Testament that went against the Slavery in The South. To say that The BIble was used to allow slavery is very disingenuous or ignorant to say.
This: The law in Leviticus was applied to the Israelites and only the Israelites but, even then, the slavery laws in the Old Testament were much more advanced and progressives than the slavery in the South.

The rapist must pay the victims father, because the father owns the daughter. The victim is forced to marry her rapist.

The Victim can cook the food of the rapist and the rapist will have to pay and raise the kids he caused or else.

Yes, the father has final say over the fate of the daughter. This is immoral. It is understandable in a primitive culture, but it is unacceptable coming from a perfectly enlightened and just source.

It isn't unacceptable, that law was given to the Israelites so they could fix the problems they could find, solutions that were far more advanced when compared to other civilizations and, when you read at the principles to said laws, it's quite clear they are still applicable today.

There is no way that many (if not all) of the soldiers would not take that to mean the young girls are their’s to take to bed, with or without consent. You can point out that it doesn’t explicitly say to rape the girls, it only says to keep them for yourself after killing their whole family. That is still very immoral, and that’s my point.

Immoral to the principles of today, still, you ignore that the girl was allowed to leave if the boy wasn't interested on her and no harm could be done to her.

can you explain to me how any context or situation would make genocide acceptable (let alone moral)?

Genocide, as understood today, is the extermination of someone for political, ethnic, racial, etc. reasons and the immorality comes from trying to kill, which is something God forbids so, knowing where this would lead, I will inform you that the exterminations in The Bible were God using the Israelites to judge those civilizations, never does it say that it was a good thing and, still, God made law that, after any war, the Israelites had to clean themselves afterwards so, even by the standards of those days, those exterminations were seen as impure.

Forgetting that some of these are hallmarks of the Christian god as well,
What I do know is that the book credited to him is not good, it is actually quite evil in parts (as we saw above).

XD
Funny to see you making a false claim, Don't get angry later when you get accused of making groundless statements.

Does it make it ok to kill them all when you are the reason they are that way AND you are all powerful and could do literally any other option imaginable?

Do you have any evidence to prove God is the reason why those civilizations were so evil? No? Then it's a baseless claim.

What do you consider "literally any option avaiable"?

Still, why does an almighty creator add any weight to a moral code?

Because that almighty creator gives a reason to be moral, something atheism lacks and is unable to do.

We would need to view several universes that were made by varying degrees of good/evil deities and compare them to our own in order to judge the nature of our creator.

Going for somethign that hasn't been proven to see if the Theleological argument is real? This is a bad argument, we can use just this universe to see if the creator is benevolent or not the same way we can see if a clock working was done by a good clock maker or not.

Because we are a social species that has evolved to tell stories. We have an innate sense of fairness that can be found in all social species (chimpanzees, wolves, dolphins, etc...).

Chimpanzees are violent, wolves are hirearchical (for those who see that as bad), only dolphins can be seen as good for our eyes and, even still to say that we are innate to fairness has been proven false with regimes like the USSR and Hitler, among many others.

I’m just wondering how you determined he was evil.

The intentions behind its actions. He deceived, manipulated and told Eve to disobey god under a false promise which ended up with them getting kicked out, to do somethign to harm others is evil, thus, the Snake/Satan is evil.

why would a good god require a human sacrifice to forgive humanity for being exactly the way he made us?

This would imply that Jesus was a simple human and not the sinless son of God that was the only pure enough being to be acceptable, which no other human being was, and still isn't, capable off.

He’s god, why can’t he just forgive us?

Because if you forgive your son after misbehaving with no discipline, the son will never learn its lesson and will only remain on being bad. The punishment for sin (disobeying God) is to stay away from him that leads to hell.

Why do we even need to be forgiven?

Because staying away from God is spiritual death.

Is the concept of inherited crimes moral?

The Bible already bans that, doesn't take away that humans sin all the time and, thus, we are guilty of it. I'll also remind you that ignorance of the law doesn't make you innocent from breaking it.

Is the original sin of eating a fruit actually evil? Sure it goes against gods law, but who put him in charge?

Yes, the eating was evil because Adam and Eve did it because they wanted to be like God, A.K.A. pride. And God existed before time (according to The Bible) and since he had the power to create us, naturaly, he is the one in charge the same way a king or an authority can name other people to be in charge.

is god good? and what is the standard of good?

Since God is good and is the standard of Good we would have to see if this works by comparing his decisions/actions with the end result of them and, so far, they check out.

It might still be the case that god is good, but one would have to show that gods actions are good by comparing him to the objective standard.

And, according to you, what is the objective standard and who named it?

Morality refers to the well being of conscious creatures. Reason and empathy are all that are needed to make objective moral judgments using well being as the standard. Morality is therefore a subjective valuing of well-being and is based on the objective physical laws of reality.

Reason and empathy are subjective, empathy was used in Venezuela to spare two figures (José Tadeo Monagas and Hugo Chávez) who tried to subvert democracy and, for sparing them, they ended up being horrible dictators that destroyed Venezuela when, in reality, they had to be trialed. The same way, many argue for reason based on what they see as reason, in example, you don't consider Christians as individuals with reason which is a fallacy in itself so, if "Reason and empathy" are needed to make objective moral judgements, then we cannot have "objective moral judgements" since that's based around already subjective ideas.

Also, the physical laws of reality (ignoring that reality is subjective as well) doesn't work to make objective moral judgements when the physical laws "of reality" don't work well with empathy.

If someone says ‘I don’t value well being’ then they have removed themselves from the conversation. There is no imperative to value well being, but if someone don’t value well being then they are likely dead.

You know that people values other's well being based around whether or not they like said someone, right? So they are dead in some moments and alive in others? That doesn't sounds like something that could work in the long run. Actually, it hasn't, since this kind of reasoning leads to "rules for thee, but not for me".

Unlike valuing well being, there is no demonstrable consequence to not valuing gods word.

The Israelites disagree with you, same with Germany after voting for Hitler, or Russia when they accepted Communism, or CCP ruled China, or CCP ruled Cuba, etc. There are plenty of nations that are seen to have suffered after abandoning God's words than nations improving after doing so.

The foundation of morality is subjective no matter what.

Just using Ancient Greece, Roman Law and The Bible we can see that morality's foundation isn't subjective. It's quite the opposite, objective morality is based around objective ideas of what is good and wrong.

We share space and resources, so in our own self interest it is better to work towards the wellbeing of the common good.

This collectivist/socialist idea is very false. The individual only cares about the common good when it serves him, never what you said, as seen in the US and how it's Constitution is based around individualism.

Because our brains are wired for empathy, we feel good doing acts of kindness without expecting compensation (like giving gifts to loved ones for example). It is also beneficial to reinforce behaviour that might benefit us

Said acts of kindness only feel good when you do them out of your own will, never when forced.

I want to live in a society where people don’t randomly kill me, so it’s rational to promote that behaviour by not walking around killing others.

That doesn't stop the criminals from killing, just promoting others to be good won't stop crime if you don't give them actual means to be good (like a job) because people kill for more than "not caring about other's well being".

There is no single right answer, but the system of scientifically examining results of actions to determine their impact on the well-being of others is how we better understand morality. The project of building a culture and society that maximizes well being is something that only we can do, and it’s going to take all the effort and innovation we have to do it! We can think something is right and be objectively wrong, like how people were wrong to think slavery was ok in the past. As we gain more data, we learn more and improve.

Gotta love how you claim that science can be used to measure morality when, in reality, that isn't feasible, it's like saying that people thought that slavery was ok in the past while ignoring that Ancient Greece abolished it and, as far I'm aware, the Jews stopped practicing it by the times of Jesus. If society back then was capable of abolishing slavery it means that the past isn't as simple as you are suggesting.

According to the bible, he is not a humanist. He has committed genocide on a scale that would embarrass the most ambitious of human serial killers. He is more concerned with us worshiping other gods then not owning people as property. You can find good and accurate things in the bible (the page numbers are very accurate for example), but in no way is it a moral book.

XD
This is blatantly false, he has never put those wars as a good thing and he weren't concerned about people being slaves then he wouldn't have made laws to ensure that slaves had a good treatment. You are literally trying to find amoral someone based on your own, badly grounded, set of moral rules.