Let's see who can find a question on this thread and answer it from a personal perspective, and not to "prove the others wrong" but to share their knowledge and/or experience on the subject.
There was a heat wave the entire time I was in Washington State, it literally started when I got there and ended when I was leaving. It clearly demonstrates that my contribution of greenhouse gases increased the mean temperature of the area!
posted
I don't think that word, 'sarcasm', means what you apparently think it means. Are you possibly talking about irony, or snark? Sarcasm is always intentional, and there was none in my post. As for the commies, they were not evil because they were atheist; but many of the equally bad religious regimes have been evil exactly because they were religious. (An example may illustrate. If the doctrine of the Russian Communist Party said nothing about gods, or perhaps even encouraged their worship, Soviet Russia would not have been a more pleasant place to live. On the other hand, if the Inquisition had not had a doctrine about how people got into heaven, well, there wouldn't have been an Inquisition in the first place, would there?)
Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think that word, 'sarcasm', means what you apparently think it means. Are you possibly talking about irony, or snark? Sarcasm is always intentional, and there was none in my post.
Ok, so now you owe me a new snark-o-meter too. (Too late for the sarcasm-o-meter). Keep in mind that I don’t know what your intentions are, if you don’t openly state them.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't think that word, 'sarcasm', means what you apparently think it means. Are you possibly talking about irony, or snark? Sarcasm is always intentional, and there was none in my post. As for the commies, they were not evil because they were atheist; but many of the equally bad religious regimes have been evil exactly because they were religious. (An example may illustrate. If the doctrine of the Russian Communist Party said nothing about gods, or perhaps even encouraged their worship, Soviet Russia would not have been a more pleasant place to live. On the other hand, if the Inquisition had not had a doctrine about how people got into heaven, well, there wouldn't have been an Inquisition in the first place, would there?)
Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
KOM: I was merely citing the lack of empirical evidence that accurately shows how a society devoid of organized religion would fare.
I then noted that off the top of my head I can only identify 3 societies where religion was renounced and none of them could be called successful on a moral scale even as an average. Every country/government has its problems/evils, but these 3 are not even close to being within the range of say "decent." It is more likely that they would fall under the category, "Spent all their time molesting and murdering their own citizens, and little else."
quote: I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
KOM: There was no sound docterinal basis for the inquisition, neither in its goals or its methods. The crusades could cite scriptures stating that Jerusalem was a holy city and that one day God would give it back to the Jews, but the inquisition had no more scriptural backing for its goals and strategies than the catholic church did when it stated the scriptures supported the idea that the earth was the center of the earth.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
suminonA, have you missed my responses? In answer to question 3, I said that neither I nor my wife felt any physical withdraws when we left religion and a belief in god.
I also gave a link to a journal in which you can read one woman's expeince as she tries to live without a belief in God as it happens. She is normally a very devout Christian.
These are real experiences that address the questions in this thread.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*whisper* Just reminding people that KoM is not speaking for me in that context. Pretty much all of human history is built on the ground-up bones of the oppressed, and I don't view religion as having been any more oppressive than, say, mercantilism.
--------
BTW, I think that woman -- "Robin" -- went about trying to break her "addiction" to God entirely the wrong way. You don't break an addiction to chocolate by telling yourself you don't like chocolate, or that there is no chocolate. There's no need to stop believing in God to stop being addicted to one's religion.
Running around constantly denying the existence of the specifically Christian God is almost indistinguishable from being a devoted Christian.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
As a matter of fact, I think the Christian religion is highly immoral quite apart from its truth value.
quote:KOM: There was no sound docterinal basis for the inquisition, neither in its goals or its methods. The crusades could cite scriptures stating that Jerusalem was a holy city and that one day God would give it back to the Jews, but the inquisition had no more scriptural backing for its goals and strategies than the catholic church did when it stated the scriptures supported the idea that the earth was the center of the earth.
Totally irrelevant. I could just as well assert that the LDS have no scriptural backing for their doctrine, and in truth I think I'd have a better case; that would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is religious belief that causes them to abstain from coffee. The point is that if you removed the religious belief from the inquisitors and their backers, they would not have acted as they did. If you added religious belief to Stalin, he would still have acted as he did, possibly with a slightly different set of targets. In fact, your reply is so totally off the mark that I'm beginning to wonder whether I missed something. Could you please explain why you thought it was relevant?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was no scriptural backing for LDS doctrine, I would so be drinking frozen Cappuccino this summer.
Immoral, huh? Christianity is immoral. I'm afraid to ask what in the code of ethics as taught by Christianity is immoral. Different definitions of morality, I suppose.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I agree that Robin went about it in a different way than I would and perhaps not the most effective way to achieve her aims. However, I am amazed at her "progress" in so little time.
I mean, I flipped the switch from believing in God to not believing in him quite quickly, but I was persuaded to that point by my own reasoning. She is doing this motivated by a simple challenge or to prove a point, which one might suspect would undermine her attempt, yet a change is happening. And it is one that I think she appreciates.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Immoral, huh? Christianity is immoral. I'm afraid to ask what in the code of ethics as taught by Christianity is immoral. Different definitions of morality, I suppose.
Nope, it's the part where everything Yahweh does is considered good. I'm bored with Numbers 31, so let me just point to Sodom and Gomorrah. Was this a good act? If not, how do you justify worshipping the being who did it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, yeah, good thing I didn't ask, isn't it.
Now don't roll your eyes. I do have faith and this situation does have an answer that satisfies me, but it's late and I'm tired and I don't want to put in the effort of figuring out how to put it in your language. You start from an entirely different point of view. It'd take too much effort to figure out how to lay the groundwork to even begin the explanation, and then you wouldn't buy it anyway. So I'm out of this one.
quote:Originally posted by enochville: suminonA, have you missed my responses? In answer to question 3, I said that neither I nor my wife felt any physical withdraws when we left religion and a belief in god.
I also gave a link to a journal in which you can read one woman's expeince as she tries to live without a belief in God as it happens. She is normally a very devout Christian.
These are real experiences that address the questions in this thread.
enochville, I’ve seen your responses. Thank you. I didn’t say that there was nobody to address the questions on this thread. I was just “lamenting” about the preceding posts that were more or less an open quarrel between “old acquaintances” (history from other threads was brought up).
So let me acknowledge that most (if not all) of the people participating in this thread are adding interesting contributions, as long as they keep a civil discourse. Tangents are also welcome, but every once in a while it’s good (for the discussion) to get “back on track”
- - - -
As for the latest tangent:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
I see this as a very strong reason not to need such a system of beliefs (i.e. a theistic one). I’d like to ask what would the solution be from where you’re standing. What alternative do you have for a “common morality”? [note that being an atheist myself, I don’t “defend” any particular religion, yet I’m quite interested in a “solution” to the “moral dilemma”: What is good/bad if there is NO religion?]
posted
I'd like to hear you state exactly what you believe the "moral dilemma" is before responding. If it's simply a question of authority (i.e. who says this is "moral" but that is not), then the only rational solution we have so far is "'society' does". Even in religion this is the de facto answer because although the religious can point (through scripture) back to "God" as their authority, it is still the specific religious society that decides the interpretation and enforcement (within their society) of what is "moral" and what is not.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'd like to hear you state exactly what you believe the "moral dilemma" is before responding.
True, my “context” was quite elliptic in that question. That’s because I was “startled” by the assertion made by KoM [i.e. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.]
So let me explain my “logic”, step by step: 1) The majority of the theists I know (IRL) is basing its moral values mainly on (their interpretation of) the scriptures (they even “validate” laic laws through the “filter” of those interpretations). I see no real problem with the people who do that, because they usually come to the “common” conclusions about morality (inasmuch as those moral values are common to different religions, such as: “don’t kill”, “don’t steal” etc.) Long story short, I think that morality can have a source in religion. 2) I think that morality exists outside religion (as you said it is mostly a “society” defined concept), so I consider that I can be a moral person even as I declare myself an atheist [And I suspect most of the atheists think the same]. So even if I “reject” the factuality of most of religious doctrine(s), its morality I see (generally) as valid [That might not be a generally accepted view]. 3) Before KoM’s “claim”, there was no “dilemma” (for me) because everybody had a valid “source” of moral values. 4) But, if what KoM is “true” than what are the theists suppose to do, to get their moral values “right”?
Does that make more sense?
So KarlEd, I totally agree with your answer, but I fear that it is a point of view that only a small minority subscribes to. So I’m looking for a “general solution” to this “dilemma”. When more people will answer, we’ll see how wrong I was/am.
posted
OK, I'll wait and see. I misuderstood that the "dilemma" was one for non-theists (i.e. not having a divine authority to rely on for a moral code), but you seem to be saying KoM has set up a dilemma for theists if we accept his premise. (For the record, he did say that Christianity is highly immoral, not that religion as a whole is. He may think that of all religion, I don't know, but he doesn't state that here.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, it's the part where everything Yahweh does is considered good. I'm bored with Numbers 31, so let me just point to Sodom and Gomorrah. Was this a good act? If not, how do you justify worshipping the being who did it?
How is that separate from its truth value? I suspect most Christians believe everything God does is good because they believe it is true that God has perfect knowledge of what is good and will act accordingly.
quote:1) The majority of the theists I know (IRL) is basing its moral values mainly on (their interpretation of) the scriptures (they even “validate” laic laws through the “filter” of those interpretations). I see no real problem with the people who do that, because they usually come to the “common” conclusions about morality (inasmuch as those moral values are common to different religions, such as: “don’t kill”, “don’t steal” etc.) Long story short, I think that morality can have a source in religion.
I don't agree. Some Christians do base their moral views on their interpretations of the scriptures, but I think the vast majority do the reverse - they base their interpretations of the scriptures on what they have already determined to be their moral views. For instance, I suspect many religious conservatives consider homosexuality to be wrong before they know anything about scripture and then only afterwards find scriptures to back up that assertion.
Of course, atheists do the same thing, only they come up with other things rather than scriptures to back up their moral assertions.
quote:2) I think that morality exists outside religion (as you said it is mostly a “society” defined concept), so I consider that I can be a moral person even as I declare myself an atheist [And I suspect most of the atheists think the same]. So even if I “reject” the factuality of most of religious doctrine(s), its morality I see (generally) as valid [That might not be a generally accepted view].
When you say "society-defined" keep in mind that the religious groups within that society are usually one of the biggest components to the way that morality is laid out by society. The irony is that most atheists I know follow a very Christian morality. And I suspect that is because our society is based very much on a Christian viewpoint. It is easy to reject God, but even without God it is difficult to escape the Christian moral viewpoint in the U.S. as you grow up and establish your moral beliefs.
I'll add, however, that I don't think our society's definition of morality IS morality. That's just what society thinks morality should be. Morality exists outside of society, and would exist even if society never existed to try and understand it. It would be wrong to murder your neighbor even if there was no society telling you it is wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is easy to reject God, but even without God it is difficult to escape the Christian moral viewpoint in the U.S. as you grow up and establish your moral beliefs.
It's even harder to define specifically what the "Christian moral viewpoint" is that you are trying to escape. I'd argue that the vast majority of basic moral ideas that make up our society are only part of the "Christian moral viewpoint" because the chose to incorporate them. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" certainly predate anything that could be meaningfully called "Christianity".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: (For the record, he did say that Christianity is highly immoral, not that religion as a whole is. He may think that of all religion, I don't know, but he doesn't state that here.)
Well, I read it here (his first post on this page):
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually. [mphasis added]
I understand theism to include more than Christianity.
posted
Let me clarify : Theism in general is immoral; Christianity has the additional distinction of being immoral even if it's true.
For the where to find moral rules, I must say I don't see the problem. Basic morality is agreed upon by, essentially, everyone. There is, I hope, nothing special about today's theists that makes them too dumb to follow whatever process the atheists used to arrive at their moral rules.
quote:How is that separate from its truth value? I suspect most Christians believe everything God does is good because they believe it is true that God has perfect knowledge of what is good and will act accordingly.
Well, yes, but that's just it. You have a situation where the most powerful being in the Universe says "I'm good, and whatever I do is good", and then proceeds to do things that are by any rational standard evil. And these Christians just nod and accept it, and if anyone should dare to criticise, they go "Well, you can't apply the same standards to the Leader, and anyway he knows better than you!" To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant. If he is, let him explain. If he can't, oppose him by whatever means are available.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought one of the advantages of talking to atheists was the elimination of possibility of self-righteousness.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And this would be New Testament stuff we are talking about, KoM?
Or are you referring to what many Christians believe to be a record of a certain group's relationship to God written from the POV of that particular group?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: For the where to find moral rules, I must say I don't see the problem. Basic morality is agreed upon by, essentially, everyone. There is, I hope, nothing special about today's theists that makes them too dumb to follow whatever process the atheists used to arrive at their moral rules.
Ok for the “basic morality” (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”/”Thou shalt not steal”). But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution? And btw, even among the atheists, the opinions on some moral issues are not so “clear cut” as I might deduce from your assertions. Do you want me to name some examples?
quote:To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant.
Well, if all that you want to do is label it as “evil” (and stop to that) then nothing else will be relevant for you. But you see, while “human nature” might be “evil by default” (I personally disagree), the fact that a leader (spiritual or otherwise) is CORRECT or NOT while in power does make a whole lot of a difference, not only for the ones that directly “obey”, but also for those that are affected by the actions of the former.
The fact that you discard religion flat out even if it might be right won’t help you deal, IMO, with the vast majority of people that needs religion at one level or another (me included). That’s why I also think that your snarkiness is not very helpful in the context of this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'll add, however, that I don't think our society's definition of morality IS morality. That's just what society thinks morality should be. Morality exists outside of society, and would exist even if society never existed to try and understand it. It would be wrong to murder your neighbor even if there was no society telling you it is wrong.
Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already? If not, then why bother talking about it? We need a morality to apply, not to “be sure that exists somewhere”.
quote: But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution?
There is a difference between deeming someone inferior "because it said so in the scriptures" and using scripture to justify one's own prejudice - even if the justifiers don't recognize it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
As a matter of fact, I think the Christian religion is highly immoral quite apart from its truth value.
quote:KOM: There was no sound docterinal basis for the inquisition, neither in its goals or its methods. The crusades could cite scriptures stating that Jerusalem was a holy city and that one day God would give it back to the Jews, but the inquisition had no more scriptural backing for its goals and strategies than the catholic church did when it stated the scriptures supported the idea that the earth was the center of the earth.
Totally irrelevant. I could just as well assert that the LDS have no scriptural backing for their doctrine, and in truth I think I'd have a better case; that would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is religious belief that causes them to abstain from coffee. The point is that if you removed the religious belief from the inquisitors and their backers, they would not have acted as they did. If you added religious belief to Stalin, he would still have acted as he did, possibly with a slightly different set of targets. In fact, your reply is so totally off the mark that I'm beginning to wonder whether I missed something. Could you please explain why you thought it was relevant?
I would argue that the Inquisitors simply used religion as a convenient tool. Were religion to simply not exsist it is my belief that people would commit the same attrocities simply under different pretexts.
Lets say there are 2 farmers and the 1 Christian farmer covets the others Taoist farmers property.
The Christian kills the Taoist in the night and says that he was killing an idol worshipper and that the Taoists pagan ways were blighting his crops.
Remove religion from the equation and I imagine something like this would happen.
Farmer A kills Farmer B in the night and when asked why says, "I wanted his fields, and I was stronger and so I took it. You may think its wrong all you like, but I am still stronger and you cannot stop me."
KOM are you trying to say that those who commit evil will always do those same evils regardless of the existance of religion? Or are you saying religion makes evil more widespread because it gives the semblance of morality to evil acts?
I think that if you are arguing that religion has never prevented an act of evil, you are not seeing a very evident aspect of religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok for the “basic morality” (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”/”Thou shalt not steal”). But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution? And btw, even among the atheists, the opinions on some moral issues are not so “clear cut” as I might deduce from your assertions. Do you want me to name some examples?
True, but where's the problem? We've gotten along fine so far without everybody agreeing on these issues. The point is, everybody has some moral code, theist or not. Generally they are quite good ones, even where they might disagree in detail.
quote:Well, if all that you want to do is label it as “evil” (and stop to that) then nothing else will be relevant for you. But you see, while “human nature” might be “evil by default” (I personally disagree), the fact that a leader (spiritual or otherwise) is CORRECT or NOT while in power does make a whole lot of a difference, not only for the ones that directly “obey”, but also for those that are affected by the actions of the former.
I see I haven't been clear. The Christian god may or may not be evil; that is a question of the truth value of the religion. But it is morally wrong to worship it based only on its own word for being good; especially when it has plainly committed many evil acts. Thus Christians are being immoral in abdicating their responsibility to judge; in accepting the word of a powerful being for its goodness, merely because it is powerful, they become amoral.
quote:And this would be New Testament stuff we are talking about, KoM?
Like the approval of slavery, and the killing off of any number of 'third parts' of the human race? Certainly.
quote:Or are you referring to what many Christians believe to be a record of a certain group's relationship to God written from the POV of that particular group?
Yes, well? Did your god destroy two cities because they were wicked, or did he not? If not, how dare you assert that the miracles you like really happened? If he did, was that a good act, or not?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The apostles not being sufficiently removed from their culture (as in your slavery example) is not the same as God endorsing it.
Not sure what you are talking about with the third parts. I'll look it up - a reference would help.
I don't believe a lot of what is recorded in the "Old Testament" as literal fact - including the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. As for "the miracles I like" - what do you think those are?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant.
It has nothing to do with being "bigger". It has to do with God's ability to see all ends. "The ends justify the means" is a much different approach when you actually know for sure what ends a particular "means" will get you. Human beings know nothing for sure, and have an extremely poor track record of guessing what ends we will achieve by pursuing a certain set of means.
But furthermore, this issue is almost totally irrelevant to the morality of Christianity - because we are not God. Even if it is okay for God to kill someone, that doesn't mean it is okay for his followers to kill someone. Thus believing that God's actions were all moral in no way implies Christians will commit those same actions themselves - and thus does not imply that Christian beliefs inherently make Christians immoral.
All your complaint boils down to is that Christians let God off the hook for things. But if you don't even believe in God, what is the complaint?
quote:Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already?
High school students can access the knowledge in their math textbooks about how to solve math problems. So why don't they get perfect scores on every math test?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between deeming someone inferior "because it said so in the scriptures" and using scripture to justify one's own prejudice - even if the justifiers don't recognize it.
kmbboots, true, there is a difference. In the first case “the innocent” is presented with the TRUE (i.e. original) scriptures, wherefrom using their reason they deduce the discrimination and therefore apply it. [In this case the scriptures are not changed, and the next “innocents” will make their own judgments.] In the second, the “not so innocents” present to the others their interpretations of the scriptures tailored so the discrimination would be justified. So anyone coming after them has the biased version.
[note: by definition "prejudices" are taught to people (i.e. the ideas are being absorbed) before they can make a rational critic concerning them.]
I’m sorry to have come to the conclusion that way too much religious education (especially when it takes the form of indoctrination) is using the second case model.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The apostles not being sufficiently removed from their culture (as in your slavery example) is not the same as God endorsing it.
(As an aside, I was under the impression that Paul was not an apostle. But never mind the semantics.)
Is the Bible the inspired word of your god, or is it not? If it is not, why do you believe it?
quote:Not sure what you are talking about with the third parts. I'll look it up - a reference would help.
Revelations.
quote:I don't believe a lot of what is recorded in the "Old Testament" as literal fact - including the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. As for "the miracles I like" - what do you think those are?
Resurrection, water into wine, raising the dead. Harmless little miracles. But as soon as somebody gets hurt, somebody made up that story? Again : Is this stuff the inspired word of your god, or not? And if only parts of it are, how is it that they happen to be the parts you approve of?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already?
High school students can access the knowledge in their math textbooks about how to solve math problems. So why don't they get perfect scores on every math test?
Well, I appreciate the analogy, but the difference might be only a detail to you. Where is that “morality textbook” that I’m unable to put into practice?
quote:It has to do with God's ability to see all ends.
Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
quote:But furthermore, this issue is almost totally irrelevant to the morality of Christianity - because we are not God. Even if it is okay for God to kill someone, that doesn't mean it is okay for his followers to kill someone. Thus believing that God's actions were all moral in no way implies Christians will commit those same actions themselves - and thus does not imply that Christian beliefs inherently make Christians immoral.
The issue is that it cannot be ok for the god to kill someone without good reason, and if you do not know what that reason is, then it is immoral to permit or approve of the killing. It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth. As long as you cannot test that truth for yourself, you have a duty to not take the killer's word for it.
quote:All your complaint boils down to is that Christians let God off the hook for things. But if you don't even believe in God, what is the complaint?
It's just as immoral whether the god exists or not. We were discussing the morality, not the truth value.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: Again assuming God knows everything as well as ALL ends, and human beings cannot see the ultimate results of all actions until the very end.
How can we pass judgement on anything God actually does? All we can do is say "Well from what I can tell it was wrong." but we would still have to admit that there is a very good chance we do not know what we are talking about.
I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All your complaint boils down to is that Christians let God off the hook for things. But if you don't even believe in God, what is the complaint?
It's just as immoral whether the god exists or not. We were discussing the morality, not the truth value.
I agree with you on the morality of this kind of “application” of the rules. But theistic religion is not reduced to that. Discarding all religion for that reason alone is a problem for those that see their religion as the sole source of morality.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
And here we “stumble” on the original topic: How much do you NEED to assume that?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The apostles not being sufficiently removed from their culture (as in your slavery example) is not the same as God endorsing it.
(As an aside, I was under the impression that Paul was not an apostle. But never mind the semantics.)
He was not one of the original twelve named. He came along later.
quote: Is the Bible the inspired word of your god, or is it not? If it is not, why do you believe it?
Sure. But "inspired" by God isn't the same as taking perfect dictation from God. The stories of the relationship of God to the people of Abraham have value and have lessons for us regardless of their factual accuracy. (Didn't we already have the whole fact vs truth conversation?) And the scriptures are not one book. It is a collection of writings spanning centuries. Some of it is more "inspired" than others.
quote:Not sure what you are talking about with the third parts. I'll look it up - a reference would help.
Revelations.
Thanks. I never bothered to read Revelations. I frankly don't think anybody did anybody any favors by including it in the canon. We get waaay to caught up in the musings (inspired or not) of John - mostly because people think it is cool and mysterious. Bah.
quote:I don't believe a lot of what is recorded in the "Old Testament" as literal fact - including the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. As for "the miracles I like" - what do you think those are?
Resurrection, water into wine, raising the dead. Harmless little miracles. But as soon as somebody gets hurt, somebody made up that story? Again : Is this stuff the inspired word of your god, or not? And if only parts of it are, how is it that they happen to be the parts you approve of?
You must remember that "miracle working" (whatever that means) was not exclusive to Jesus. Lots of prophets, etc. healed the sick and so forth (again, whatever that means). Whether they actually did what we wouild consider miracles? I dunno? It was part of the literature of the time - everyprophet and his brother had miracle stories written about them. You had to have miracle stories to have any "street cred" as a prophet back in the day. Some might even be true. There are plenty of things we don't understand.
But to my faith in the teachings of Jesus, miracles are nice, but basically irrelevent. I care that the teaching themselves are good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
And here we “stumble” on the original topic: How much do you NEED to assume that?
A.
If God in fact is trying to accomplish the greatest good and knows exactly how to do so, his goal would then be my goal.
That being said I should think it is ESSENTIAL that one be COMPLETELY confident that the instructions he/she received from God are correct in order to be truely happy.
Certainly one can be happy to an extent while still being ignorant of God's designs. But were somebody aware that there is a master plan behind everything and that their life is part of that plan, that the plan's objective is ultimate happiness, could that person remain exactly as happy as they were before they learned that?
I do not think so.
If all of that is true, as my goal is to be as happy as I can be, I need religion to accomplish that goal.
Though I must confess how much we think we need religion might change depending on whether we are alive or dead.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, first I want to acknowledge that answering my questions you bring a contribution to this thread that I value greately. Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said I should think it is ESSENTIAL that one be COMPLETELY confident that the instructions he/she received from God are correct in order to be truely happy.
Ok, in your case, how confident are you that you’ve goy the correct instructions from (your) God? Meaning: If you had these revelations yourself, how confident are you that you were able to get the true (i.e. clear, not ambiguous) message? If there were other mortal intermediaries, how confident are you that they got it right in the first place?
quote:Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
In the same post you state "we were discussing the morality, not the truth value." Hence, it doesn't matter if I know it's true or not. All that matters is that IF it is true that God sees all ends, THEN it is reasonable to think morality works a little bit differently for him than it does for those of us who cannot see any ends for sure.
quote:It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth.
I have a moral responsibility to judge God? I have no moral responsibility to judge anyone's decisions other than my own.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wups, I seem to have missed this post. Apologies.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I would argue that the Inquisitors simply used religion as a convenient tool. Were religion to simply not exsist it is my belief that people would commit the same attrocities simply under different pretexts.
Lets say there are 2 farmers and the 1 Christian farmer covets the others Taoist farmers property.
The Christian kills the Taoist in the night and says that he was killing an idol worshipper and that the Taoists pagan ways were blighting his crops.
Remove religion from the equation and I imagine something like this would happen.
Farmer A kills Farmer B in the night and when asked why says, "I wanted his fields, and I was stronger and so I took it. You may think its wrong all you like, but I am still stronger and you cannot stop me."
Yes, and then the local law steps in and replies "That's what you think." If there's no law enforcement, certainly you will get evil acts regardless of the religion; anarchy is not a good thing. But there are two issues you are missing. Religion may cause the local law to look the other way if the victim is a Taoist. Second, religion may cause Farmer A to want to kill or convert his neighbour quite independent of the land issue. Neither of these would happen in the absence of religion.
quote:KOM are you trying to say that those who commit evil will always do those same evils regardless of the existance of religion?
Absolutely not. I am saying that religion opens up a whole new range of ways in which evil acts can be considered good.
quote: Or are you saying religion makes evil more widespread because it gives the semblance of morality to evil acts?
Yes, exactly.
quote:I think that if you are arguing that religion has never prevented an act of evil, you are not seeing a very evident aspect of religion.
Perhaps you would care to give an example?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: Again assuming God knows everything as well as ALL ends, and human beings cannot see the ultimate results of all actions until the very end.
How can we pass judgement on anything God actually does? All we can do is say "Well from what I can tell it was wrong." but we would still have to admit that there is a very good chance we do not know what we are talking about.
I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
Well, you are sort of missing my point here. It is the assumption that is immoral. You have an absolute moral duty not to make any such assumption, especially when you consider the sort of atrocities the OT describes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
In the same post you state "we were discussing the morality, not the truth value." Hence, it doesn't matter if I know it's true or not. All that matters is that IF it is true that God sees all ends, THEN it is reasonable to think morality works a little bit differently for him than it does for those of us who cannot see any ends for sure.
Yes, yes, but we are not talking about what is actually true, we are talking about what you know to be true. If I had gone back to 1914 and killed Hitler, that would be a good act, yes? But it would have been pretty immoral of people back then to just take my word for it and not hang me.
quote:It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth.
I have a moral responsibility to judge God? I have no moral responsibility to judge anyone's decisions other than my own. [/QUOTE]
So it would be ok, then, to stand aside during an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that you yourself weren't taking any evil action?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further to the question of how religion can cause conflict which wouldn't happen in its absence, here is rivka over in the Palestine thread :
quote: But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Now, I don't want to make a moral judgement here; as far as I'm concerned, the Arabs are being rather stupid in wanting Israel destroyed. Nonetheless, if it weren't for the Jewish religion, this conflict would not exist, since Israel would not have been resettled.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: BlackBlade, first I want to acknowledge that answering my questions you bring a contribution to this thread that I value greately. Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That being said I should think it is ESSENTIAL that one be COMPLETELY confident that the instructions he/she received from God are correct in order to be truely happy.
Ok, in your case, how confident are you that you’ve goy the correct instructions from (your) God? Meaning: If you had these revelations yourself, how confident are you that you were able to get the true (i.e. clear, not ambiguous) message? If there were other mortal intermediaries, how confident are you that they got it right in the first place?
A.
Having said all that, were I absolutely certain that my belief in God is correct, and his will as revealed by his prophets is his true will. Were I to somehow learn otherwise I do not think I would be capable of being certain of anything ever again.
KOM: Just today I made a moral choice based on my religion. I was leaving work for lunch and usually I do not clock out because I leave for only 10 minutes and eat lunch at my cubicle. But today I was going to be gone 30 minutes before eating my lunch at my cubicle. My boss would not know the difference, and I certainly need the money. I felt it was justified in not clocking out, but at the same time I wondered if I was being "honest in my dealings with my fellow man." I decided that if the situation had just a shade of immorality and I could not be entirely comfortable with not clocking out, that a safer and more moral recourse would be to clock out.
So I did.
Simple, non miraculous, but I made it based on promises I made to God.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel sorry for anyone who has such a weak moral sense that they need that kind of crutch to deal honestly with their employer. Interestingly enough, I have on occasion been faced with the same kind of moral choice, and made the same decision. So it is clearly not religion that is the difference between clocking out, and not doing so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
that was ... "close". What was the question you were answering again? 
