religion and morality

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

This sounds like hell is much more than just separation from God.

But it also sounds like eternal fire exists with eternal darkness. One can't be a metaphor and the other not in the same text. Since it doesn't make sense to have darkness with fire, I suggest the eternal fire, which constitutes punishment by regret is a metaphor like eternal darkness is the absence of God. Just my $00.02

Maybe Hell has adopted a hydrogen economy to minimize Hellwide Warming. Hydrogen flames give off very little light.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Maybe Hell has adopted a hydrogen economy to minimize Hellwide Warming. Hydrogen flames give off very little light.

I can just see it.

"well, first you need to generate the electricity to separate the hydrogen, maybe burn fossil fuels or use 'SOLAR' then you use the produced hydrogen reaction on the energy net that was available from the original energy source in the first place. Sure, it costs more and you still burn the same stuff, and you lose overall energy efficiency, but hydrogen is so enviro-friendly....."

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[champu 1]

Quote

I agree they do -- in fact I see many morals are nearly universal despite the differences in religions. I wonder why?

Perhaps because morals and theism came first and religions are attempts to make the idea of following morals more popular and formal by linking the two? I'd go even further to say the idea of morals and the idea that there is a "right" and "wrong" have been artificially formalized by man as well.

Despite there being only a handful that we readily recognize as such (hunger, physical pain, sexual desires, etc.) it's quite probable that all feelings we experience are products of the evolutionary process. This is to include feelings one might claim stem from "having morals" such as faith, guilt, righteousness, and yes, even love.

There is nothing more selfish than genes undergoing evolution, but when you look at a species like man that has come as far as it has only because of our ability to work together, you can appreciate why, over time, it would become beneficial to the individual to experience these feelings we attribute to the existence of morals. You can even observe glints of it in other fairly advanced species.

I think a great many philosophers who try to understand the foundations of what could be considered right or wrong, believing such foundations are sure to exist because of a nearly universal set of feelings that go along with committing certain actions are barking up the wrong tree. What if the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are nothing more than a part of man himself, and are thus no more mature, let alone concrete, than man is as an evolving species? Talk about aiming at a moving target...

The authors of religious texts have done no better in what started, no doubt, as a similar pursuit. They focused on a snapshot of "right and wrong," declared compliance to be mandatory, and backed it with supernatural retribution or reward. But the stories are full of contradictions and the arguments are full of logical fallacies.

That is to be expected as the only thing my studies of religion have successfully taught me is that man truly is imperfect, as will be anything man creates. It has taught me this through, quite possibly, the most elaborate example of irony in all of history. The largest, most catastrophic, and unfortunately still ongoing failure of man to create something perfect is the concept of religion itself.

[billvon 2,991]

>but hydrogen is so enviro-friendly.....

Yeah, but when you burn hydrogen you get water, and there's no escape from hell, so all that water would stay there. And there are no biblical references to "the eternal sauna" so that's just not possible.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

I agree they do -- in fact I see many morals are nearly universal despite the differences in religions. I wonder why?

Perhaps because morals and theism came first and religions are attempts to make the idea of following morals more popular and formal by linking the two? I'd go even further to say the idea of morals and the idea that there is a "right" and "wrong" have been artificially formalized by man as well.
.

But why would everyone have some universal morals when they don't have universal religions?

steveOrino

[Lindsey 0]

But why would everyone have some universal morals when they don't have universal religions?

those behaviors that we consider "moral" offer a survival benefit.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,991]

>But why would everyone have some universal morals when they don't
>have universal religions?

Because the underlying drives - protection of the weak, cooperation against danger, recognition of others in the tribe, care for one's own extended family - are fundamental to everyone who's followed our evolutionary path. People without those basic drives didn't survive to make their own morals. (IMO of course.)

[steveorino 7]

Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

steveOrino

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

At least we won't all be going to hell...

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

At least we won't all be going to hell...

That would be one good thing!

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

Actually, the opposite is true! Since we all share some very basic drives, they form a common ("absolute" if you will) basis for most moralities. You will rarely find a morality where it's OK to kill your family and friends for that reason, or where patriotism (or whatever you call support of your community) is considered bad.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

Actually, the opposite is true! Since we all share some very basic drives, they form a common ("absolute" if you will) basis for most moralities. You will rarely find a morality where it's OK to kill your family and friends for that reason, or where patriotism (or whatever you call support of your community) is considered bad.

well, some of us are going to hell then.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>Then I guess there are no absolutes in morality?

Actually, the opposite is true! Since we all share some very basic drives, they form a common ("absolute" if you will) basis for most moralities. You will rarely find a morality where it's OK to kill your family and friends for that reason, or where patriotism (or whatever you call support of your community) is considered bad.

Nah, if it is evolved morals, they are subjective. This is why I like Christianity (as it is taught by JC). We may all agree that we should “love our neighbor” but it is fairly easy to redefine our neighbor with moral relativity. He’s white, he lives in Tulsa, USA, he is Christian, he’s my same denomination, etc. Jesus and his parable about the Good Samaritan, define the neighbor from a moral absolute

steveOrino

[Lindsey 0]

I don't understand what you're saying.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I don't understand what you're saying.

Maybe he's writing in tongues.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

I don't understand what you're saying.

With morals that are "relative" there are no absolutes. Think subjective VS objective. With subjective or relative morals you can define your neighbors as "one of you" therefore it is easy to "love him"

Jesus defined morals more objectively with absolutes. The moral of the God Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is EVERYONE is our neighbor (among many other morals taught from this parable.)

steveOrino

[champu 1]

Quote

Nah, if it is evolved morals, they are subjective. This is why I like Christianity (as it is taught by JC). We may all agree that we should “love our neighbor” but it is fairly easy to redefine our neighbor with moral relativity. He’s white, he lives in Tulsa, USA, he is Christian, he’s my same denomination, etc. Jesus and his parable about the Good Samaritan, define the neighbor from a moral absolute

If you try and understand the nature of morals by writing, "love your neighbor, honor your parents, thou shalt not kill, etc..." on a piece of paper, placing the paper on your desk, and banging your head against it until the words mean to you what you think the words meant to Jesus, you're not only wasting your time, you're also going to wind up with a headache.

Morals are not subjective/objective so much as they are simply artificial. They are highly circumstantial conclusions based on what a person feels is right. That's why morals always seem to have a long drawn out story to go with them. Because the author has to set everything up, making sure the whole scene is just right, so that you will reach the conclusion at the end of the story that was intended.

But not everyone is going to read every story and feel the same way. That doesn't mean there's a moral absolute embedded in the story and that some people, "get it" and some people, "don't get it." It means, as I said before, that what's "right" and "wrong" come directly from feelings that are evolving along with man, and they are no more concrete than we are as a species.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

If you try and understand the nature of morals by writing, "love your neighbor, honor your parents, thou shalt not kill, etc..." on a piece of paper, placing the paper on your desk, and banging your head against it until the words mean to you what you think the words meant to Jesus, you're not only wasting your time, you're also going to wind up with a headache.

But that is what we theologians do ...


Than according to your theory, Hitler was as moral as Mother Teresa. Of course, all may not agree, as you believe morals are artificial, therefore, they are simply created by societies or individuals. So you cannot say Hitler was "absolutely" morally wrong to exterminate 6 million Jews. We may feel that way, but perhaps if we "evolve" long enough we won't consider his actions "absolutely" morally wrong.

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>Nah, if it is evolved morals, they are subjective.

I think it depends on how the morals are developed. If they are based on some objectifiable drive, then the degree they are "subjective" is the degree that they deviate from that drive. "Don't kill your family or friends" is an objectifiable, measurable drive, and thus an objective moral. "Don't cheat too much on your taxes" is a subjective one since it's far removed from any natural drive (outside greed, of course.)

>Jesus and his parable about the Good Samaritan, define the neighbor from a moral absolute . . .

No more or less absolute than any other definition, and arguably more subjective than a moral that has its roots in our basic mental wiring. (Note that the idea that _you_ find them absolute does not make them so, outside your subjective experience.) I mean, if you had been born before Jesus, you could not use that parable to define your "absolute" morals - even though you might have a similar sort of moral. A moral that changes with time can't really be called absolute (IMO.)

[steveorino 7]

I agree with you that some morals are subjective and some morals are objective (absolute)

steveOrino

[champu 1]

Quote

Than according to your theory, Hitler was as moral as Mother Teresa. Of course, all may not agree, as you believe morals are artificial, therefore, they are simply created by societies or individuals. So you cannot say Hitler was "absolutely" morally wrong to exterminate 6 million Jews. We may feel that way, but perhaps we wil "evolve" long enough to not consider his actions "absolutely" morally wrong.

Where some would take this opportunity to hide behind Godwin's Law, I will press on!

It may be that I don't feel what he did was right, and you don't feel what he did was right, but he apparently felt what he was doing was right. What does that mean in terms of the evolution of feelings and achieving a moral absolute? Not a whole lot really. Only that evolution is not organized and "doesn't care" if it accomplishes anything; it just happens to over time.

[steveorino 7]

come on, answer the question ...
Was Hitler's holecaust relatively right or absolutely wrong?

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>Was Hitler's holecaust relatively right or absolutely wrong?

Relatively wrong. If it were absolutely wrong in christiandom, we wouldn't have reams of scholarly papers explaining how "thou shalt not kill" applies only to murder and not execution of criminals, wartime killings or use of WMD's on civilians. Heck, the bible's morality was used as a justification for the Crusades - so genocide is clearly morally relative from christianity's point of view.

[philh 0]

There are nany genocides in the bible commanded by god, so you must agree if the holcaust is absolutely wrong thhen god is absolutley wrong.

[philh 0]

The idea that Chistrianity leads to any objective or absolute morality is ridiculous. If it were the case then Christians would agree on major moral issues of the day, they dont. You will find Christians on both sides of contemporary issues such as abortion, capital punishment, stem cell researchm, the war in Iraq etc etc.

During the slavery debates that raged in the USA in the 19th century many Christians were inspired by their religion to defend slavery. I will quote you an example:

"Such were the nature and extent of slavery in the world, when our Saviour appeared, to proclaim "peace on earth, and good will to men"--to preach the glad tidings of salvation to a ruined world--to redeem us from sin and everlasting death, and to "open the kingdom of Heaven to all believers." And how did he regard it? What had he to say of this institution, as he found it existing among the people he came to save? Did he condemn it as anti-scriptural and unjust? Did he enjoin on his disciples an immediate emancipation of their slaves? Did he so much as caution his followers against purchasing them in the future? Not a word, disapproving the practice, ever fell from his lips. "A.E. Miller, Printer to The Protestant Episcopal Society for the Advancement of Christianity in South-Carolina, 1837):


So clearly Chrstianity was used as a justification for slavery and its a justification that made perfect sense to some becuase indeed Christ didnt condenm slavery.He could see the fututre, therefore he knew Christian civilisation would keep slaves and he could have condemmed it, he didnt.

Since you mention the holocaust let us deal with that issue. What Hitlers own beliefs were are up for debate as he made many contradictory statements on the issue. But what is not at issue is that he used Christinaity as a justification for anti semitsm. This brand of anti semitism had a long history in Germany and it was inspred by A Christian inspired hatred of the Jews for rejecting Chrsit as exemplified by Martin Luther.
here's what Hitler himself had to say:
""I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders."

But of course Hitler could not have acted alone, so his personal beliefs are not really the point. What is th point is that the Lutherian tradition had planted the seeds of anti semitsm which matured under Hitler. This is what Martin Luther had to say on the Jews:

"We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite their murder, cursing, blaspheming, lying and defaming.”

"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country"

"My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews' malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but that they are surely possessed by all devils."

So the grounds for anti semitism were based upon Christianity. The holcaust occured becasue it was based on many centuries of anti semitic thought whihc was roused by fervent believing Chrstians. It is no coincidence that CrystalNacht occured on Martin Luthers birthday. Look at what Goebbels had to say

"Christ is the genius of love, as such the most diametrical opposite of Judaism, which is the incarnation of hate. The Jew is a non-race among the races of the earth.... Christ is the first great enemy of the Jews.... that is why Judaism had to get rid of him. For he was shaking the very foundations of its future international power. The Jew is the lie personified. When he crucified Christ, he crucified everlasting truth for the first time in history. "

Now how can you tell me Christianity leads to objective morality?