Is religion necessary for an ethical life?

[WiccanLiberal]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

[tailfins]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

It's a necessary, but not sufficient condition. I will use my wife's family as an example of religious consideration. They are what some refer to as "holy rollers", a certain rather energetic style of Pentecostal. They believe in something called "speaking in tongues". They also know a buttoned-downed primitive-style Baptist like myself believes that "speaking in tongues" summons demons. It's called "Batista Regular" in Brazil. They have the consideration to go out of their way to keep that kind of thing away from me.

[AllieBaba]

I'm not sure ethics can exist without commitment to the attainment of an ultimately unreachable perfection of kind thought and behavior. And I've yet to see non-religious people embrace that concept.

[Voted4Reagan]

No matter what the faith, it is a starting point to set ones moral compass.

Pagan, Jew, Muslim or Christian (Yes...Catholics are the original Christians by 1500 years...) or any other poly or monotheistic faith based system. It is the actions and mannerisms that you display in the practice of your faith and your ability to accept the differences in others beliefs.

So even if you are a Pastafarian...I respect your beliefs.

Have you been touched by his Noodly Appendage?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/55/77/5f/55775f5e9643dfe1051debd876e860e2.jpg

[Noir]

Not at all.

[Gunny]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.

[WiccanLiberal]

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.


Good answer. By ethical I meant being in line with the accepted right and wrong standards of one's society. People in modern western society have a societal standard that says, basically, that we should do the best for ourselves and family (as we define it) without overtly harming others. We therefore shouldn't cheat, steal, lie, etc. Whether you derive these standards from a reading of the law or from scriptural sources, these are general expected behaviors if you wish to be accepted as a functioning member of society. I behave ethically because I know that what I project outward to the universe is what comes back to me. Others have their own reasons. That is part of what I am getting at.

[gabosaurus]

Not at all. I know a lot of people with high moral and ethical standards who are not religious. It is about your personality and not your beliefs.

Then again, there are people who claim to be religious, yet do not have the moral and ethical standards normally required to be Christians.

[Gunny]

Good answer. By ethical I meant being in line with the accepted right and wrong standards of one's society. People in modern western society have a societal standard that says, basically, that we should do the best for ourselves and family (as we define it) without overtly harming others. We therefore shouldn't cheat, steal, lie, etc. Whether you derive these standards from a reading of the law or from scriptural sources, these are general expected behaviors if you wish to be accepted as a functioning member of society. I behave ethically because I know that what I project outward to the universe is what comes back to me. Others have their own reasons. That is part of what I am getting at.

It's a complex discussion with no single answer. Especially when "ethics" is generalized". As a society, our ethics are Judeo-Christian. I've spent countless hours arguing with people who believe they are inherent. Food and shelter--survival--are inherent. Everything else is created by Man through REAL evolution.

It's an argument that encompasses many things. People believe what they are taught and our society starts on us from birth. So do the Arabs/Persians. When we quit treating them like they think like us and understand us, we might get somewhere.

Ethics in this country appear to be more politically motivated now than anything else. As it stands, the left tell the right what they have to think and the right cowers to it. Heaven forbid you get called un-PC by the left. While the left won't hesitate to shove something down everyone else's throats regardless the hypocricy to the standard they hold the right to.

I guess a good summation is we have no ethical standard anymore.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

Right off the top of my head I would say that a religious belief has little to do with the morality of the community. There are examples where the less religion there is, the more moral are the citizens. There are also examples, notably the U.S., where they claim to be one of the most religious nations in the world yet have the worse abortion, crime and incarceration rates in the world.

I think culture and tradition are more important than religions as to how moral a community and person are. Not only do children inherit their parents religion without really choosing it for it’s moral values, children also inherit the morality or immorality of peers and community.

In my own life, I would say that I was more immoral before I dropped my inherited religion of R.C. than after although I should state that I was quite young when I dropped it. After a hiatus of many years as an atheist and skeptic, I chose the religion, Gnostic Christianity, which I now follow and I think I am at the epitome of the morality I can know and act out.


I come here to test that morality but many here do not agree with my moral views because they conflict with the bible God’s, although most will not argue for their God’s position and so I am forced for lack of better understanding to stick with them.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Define "ethical": You mean ethical according to Judeo-Christian society? There are no inherent ethics. That's a load of crap. Man CREATES the ethics. Ethics do not create Man.

I agree.

So would one of the Jesus archetypes. When he spoke of the Sabbath and it’s laws, he said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. That also implies, at least to me, that religions and Gods were created for man and not man for Gods.


Ethics and morals then are created for man and not man for the ethics and morals of some absentee God whose rules and laws have been invented by some man.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It's a complex discussion with no single answer. Especially when "ethics" is generalized". As a society, our ethics are Judeo-Christian. I've spent countless hours arguing with people who believe they are inherent. Food and shelter--survival--are inherent. Everything else is created by Man through REAL evolution.

It's an argument that encompasses many things. People believe what they are taught and our society starts on us from birth. So do the Arabs/Persians. When we quit treating them like they think like us and understand us, we might get somewhere.

Ethics in this country appear to be more politically motivated now than anything else. As it stands, the left tell the right what they have to think and the right cowers to it. Heaven forbid you get called un-PC by the left. While the left won't hesitate to shove something down everyone else's throats regardless the hypocricy to the standard they hold the right to.

I guess a good summation is we have no ethical standard anymore.

I agreed with your last but do not think I will here but need an example of what you are referring to before being sure.

If morally and ethically correct, I cannot see the right cowering on any issue.

What issue (s) have the left made the right cower on?


Regards
DL

[revelarts]

"Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? "
No, but.
People may live "ethical" lives based on their natural disposition and/or upbringing in a culture influenced by ethical norms. But never embrace, profess, acknowledge or even consider the real religious (or philosophical) ROOTS of those norms they live out.

Like a person who wheres clothes like everyone else but never questions WHY we do it the way we do.

"The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach?"
No, "ensure"? No, never has.
Make it more likely? Yes, in the right circumstances.
Adhering to a good religion lays a foundation for WHAT IS ethical that's clear (for the most part). It does not leave most ethical questions open for debate. But whether or not a person, the bulk of a religious group or a culture LIVE those values out is another story. It's more likely If the ethical standards are PROMOTED and lived out by example by the leadership, in the religious group, the fathers, and broader culture. today the media culture. And sincerely passed down.


.......

Red points out "what do you mean "ethical".
At this point in time the clearer jeduo Christian definition is just the old MOLD that todays western current ideals are barely shape by. But it's still a real facsimile. As you mention not lying cheating stealing and killing are still adhered to and aspects of human equality and the santitiy of life . But all those are even questioned by some at this point even though most would claim they still agree with them.

My point in the atheism thread is that Atheist have nothing to go on but there OWN personal standards (mostly picked up in their culture) .
But finally the cultural ethical standards are BS ad hoc social structures for humans to get along with. Cannibal societies got along and had ethics. Societies with human sacrifice got along and had ethics. Those bad old missionaries taught them that eating people was bad and human sacrifice to false gods was bad. Against the rule of GOD. Ethics to an Objective standard.
Even the Irish were sacrificing children to false god's and drinking out of human skulls until St. Patrick and other CHANGED the ethics --the Faith-- of the culture. (mostly anyway).

In the 20th century the Atheist social darwinist taught that human kindness and not killing the weak was Anti the reality of our evolutionary mandate. That the strongest and fittest should survive. Lying, cheating stealing, killing were OK if the ultimate goal is the survival of the "highest" races.
Other Atheist ,who don't agree have no "ethical" base to refute them on. ethics for them are personal and made up by the societies. If the society decides it's wise and good to kill handicapped children then THAT is not just legal it's "ethical" since they can claim no outside objective standard.
Athist like richard Dawkins says he doesn't LIKE social Darwinism but he he has no good reason why it's "wrong". But he still says that our evolutionary natures compel us to survive above all and evolution's made us so only that animal urge will dominate our actions. Though he somehow HOPES we can RISE above it ..."somehow".

sorry its long

[AllieBaba]

"Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? "
No, but.
People may live "ethical" lives based on their natural disposition and/or upbringing in a culture influenced by ethical norms. But never embrace, profess, acknowledge or even consider the real religious (or philosophical) ROOTS of those norms they live out.

Like a person who wheres clothes like everyone else but never questions WHY we do it the way we do.

"The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach?"
No, "ensure"? No, never has.
Make it more likely? Yes, in the right circumstances.
Adhering to a good religion lays a foundation for WHAT IS ethical that's clear (for the most part). It does not leave most ethical questions open for debate. But whether or not a person, the bulk of a religious group or a culture LIVE those values out is another story. It's more likely If the ethical standards are PROMOTED and lived out by example by the leadership, in the religious group, the fathers, and broader culture. today the media culture. And sincerely passed down.


.......

Red points out "what do you mean "ethical".
At this point in time the clearer jeduo Christian definition is just the old MOLD that todays western current ideals are barely shape by. But it's still a real facsimile. As you mention not lying cheating stealing and killing are still adhered to and aspects of human equality and the santitiy of life . But all those are even questioned by some at this point even though most would claim they still agree with them.

My point in the atheism thread is that Atheist have nothing to go on but there OWN personal standards (mostly picked up in their culture) .
But finally the cultural ethical standards are BS ad hoc social structures for humans to get along with. Cannibal societies got along and had ethics. Societies with human sacrifice got along and had ethics. Those bad old missionaries taught them that eating people was bad and human sacrifice to false gods was bad. Against the rule of GOD. Ethics to an Objective standard.
Even the Irish were sacrificing children to false god's and drinking out of human skulls until St. Patrick and other CHANGED the ethics --the Faith-- of the culture. (mostly anyway).

In the 20th century the Atheist social darwinist taught that human kindness and not killing the weak was Anti the reality of our evolutionary mandate. That the strongest and fittest should survive. Lying, cheating stealing, killing were OK if the ultimate goal is the survival of the "highest" races.
Other Atheist ,who don't agree have no "ethical" base to refute them on. ethics for them are personal and made up by the societies. If the society decides it's wise and good to kill handicapped children then THAT is not just legal it's "ethical" since they can claim no outside objective standard.
Athist like richard Dawkins says he doesn't LIKE social Darwinism but he he has no good reason why it's "wrong". But he still says that our evolutionary natures compel us to survive above all and evolution's made us so only that animal urge will dominate our actions. Though he somehow HOPES we can RISE above it ..."somehow".

sorry its long
Yes it is, and yet you never made a coherent point. What is your point?

[revelarts]

Yes it is, and yet you never made a coherent point. What is your point?

People can live ethically in the west without even knowing much about a religion. But the Ethics in the west they are living are OFTEN based on the fumes of ethics from 1000+ years of christianity in the west.

Adhering to a good religion is no guarantee of ethical behavior but it's a foundation for the probability of MORE ethical behavior.

......
Atheist can't rationally say a cannibal eating a human for lunch is Unethical.
Neither can they rationally say that not baking a cake for a homosexual is Unethical. Ethics are culturally based but ultimately personal for them. And it's often just a word expressing a desire that's in conflict with humans basic evolutionary drives.

[Gunny]

I agreed with your last but do not think I will here but need an example of what you are referring to before being sure.

If morally and ethically correct, I cannot see the right cowering on any issue.

What issue (s) have the left made the right cower on?


Regards
DL

What cave are YOU living in? Where do you want to start? Hounding Gingrich out of office? Accusing Trent Lott of racism? A certain leftwingnut DA determined to get Delay out of office? Anyone with any balls on the right, the left has attacked relentlessly and the right reacts by killing its own instead of using the Obama/Clinton strategy: pretend it never happened and move on.

Everyone in the GOP has been so busy trying to conform to the left's PC standards they forgot who and what they are supposed to be. McConnell is a perfect example. These 90s Republicans need to go. And I don't care where.

[Gunny]

At any rate, that's off-topic.

The original post asks if one can be ethical without religion. The answer is yes, once a society is established and adherence to the religion that established it is no longer compulsory.

[Kathianne]

Good answer. By ethical I meant being in line with the accepted right and wrong standards of one's society. People in modern western society have a societal standard that says, basically, that we should do the best for ourselves and family (as we define it) without overtly harming others. We therefore shouldn't cheat, steal, lie, etc. Whether you derive these standards from a reading of the law or from scriptural sources, these are general expected behaviors if you wish to be accepted as a functioning member of society. I behave ethically because I know that what I project outward to the universe is what comes back to me. Others have their own reasons. That is part of what I am getting at.

I don't know that standards of society are the best defining point in this conversation. Look at abortion. Look at 'competing with the Jone's.' Society isn't necessarily full on ethical or even doing what's best for the masses.

I've known folks that say they are atheist or agnostic, none were of the type I've met online. They only brought up their unbelief or unsurebelief systems when others were discussing religion. While they may have felt more 'evolved' you'd never guess it because of their 'un'religious feelings. Certainly didn't try to convince believers to join their 'unbelief.'

They have all been good people, as far as I've known. Wouldn't cheat, lie, steal; in fact very nice people to be around.

[red state]

[QUOTE=Voted4Reagan;752483]No matter what the faith, it is a starting point to set ones moral compass.

Pagan, Jew, Muslim or Christian (Yes...Catholics are the original Christians by 1500 years...) or any other poly or monotheistic faith based system. It is the actions and mannerisms that you display in the practice of your faith and your ability to accept the differences in others beliefs.

So even if you are a Pastafarian...I respect your beliefs.

Have you been touched by his Noodly Appendage?

Except for the Catholics being the original Christian thingy.......one word (John the sprinkler) naw....I didn't think so. :laugh:

But I do agree that a compass is needed (even a poor one that is a tad off is better than a liberal, anything goes, may as well do "it" in the road mentality). I saw a Nature show on natives living in tree houses on NETFLIX just yesterday and they had a rule that women always go in/up last so that the men can't look up their grass skirts. Never mind that many of the men (or women) were covered much at all; still, they had an ounce of decency that is lacking in an anarchy-type of believe system.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

People can live ethically in the west without even knowing much about a religion. But the Ethics in the west they are living are OFTEN based on the fumes of ethics from 1000+ years of christianity in the west.

Adhering to a good religion is no guarantee of ethical behavior but it's a foundation for the probability of MORE ethical behavior..

.

The probability you point to seems to have gone sideways in the U.S.

What would you attribute to the super high crime and abortion rates?

Regards
DL

[Gunny]

I don't know that standards of society are the best defining point in this conversation. Look at abortion. Look at 'competing with the Jone's.' Society isn't necessarily full on ethical or even doing what's best for the masses.

I've known folks that say they are atheist or agnostic, none were of the type I've met online. They only brought up their unbelief or unsurebelief systems when others were discussing religion. While they may have felt more 'evolved' you'd never guess it because of their 'un'religious feelings. Certainly didn't try to convince believers to join their 'unbelief.'

They have all been good people, as far as I've known. Wouldn't cheat, lie, steal; in fact very nice people to be around.

I'm sure we have met some honest atheists online. We just don't know them. They don't need to use a message board to rail and troll because they are insecure. The ones that do are self-evident. It makes it almost impossible to have an honest argument.

For instance, WL is a wiccan. A Witch, in layman's terms. Their beliefs are pagan. It kind of died out with the Celts. For instance, I was the firstborn male child in my family on the winter solstice. In pagan belief, that means something. In reality, I ain't getting any royalty checks.:laugh:

The probelm I see is reconciling paganism with a judeo-christian society.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What cave are YOU living in? Where do you want to start? Hounding Gingrich out of office? Accusing Trent Lott of racism? A certain leftwingnut DA determined to get Delay out of office? Anyone with any balls on the right, the left has attacked relentlessly and the right reacts by killing its own instead of using the Obama/Clinton strategy: pretend it never happened and move on.

Everyone in the GOP has been so busy trying to conform to the left's PC standards they forgot who and what they are supposed to be. McConnell is a perfect example. These 90s Republicans need to go. And I don't care where.

Not being American, your politicians are not in the forefront of my interests the way issues are. I thought you had an issue in mind and not individuals who are too weak to defend their positions.

I guess that if the right cannot muster strong leadership and candidates willing to fight for what they say, this might show an inherent weakness in your GOP that they might want to identify and correct.


Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

At any rate, that's off-topic.

The original post asks if one can be ethical without religion. The answer is yes, once a society is established and adherence to the religion that established it is no longer compulsory.

LOL.

Are you saying that a nation cannot be a moral and ethical one without a religion founding it?


Regards
DL

[WiccanLiberal]

I'm sure we have met some honest atheists online. We just don't know them. They don't need to use a message board to rail and troll because they are insecure. The ones that do are self-evident. It makes it almost impossible to have an honest argument.

For instance, WL is a wiccan. A Witch, in layman's terms. Their beliefs are pagan. It kind of died out with the Celts. For instance, I was the firstborn male child in my family on the winter solstice. In pagan belief, that means something. In reality, I ain't getting any royalty checks.:laugh:

The probelm I see is reconciling paganism with a judeo-christian society.

Gunny I grew up RC. I found organized JudeoChristian systems had few answers for the questions I was asking. So I went my own way and began asking questions of people I respected for the way they lived their life. I asked about how what they believed was active in their world. That is how I ended up on the path I am on now. What I did find is that this society, established in the USA by Europeans with a JudeoChristian background, is not at all antithetical to my beliefs or practices. I am motivated by my spiritual core to do the best I can to live a "good" life - to be a positive force in the world around me. I donate to the charities I feel are worthwhile. In my work, I help people achieve better health. I try to make my personal interactions positive. I vote in elections in the way I think best reflects the greater good of this society. And I encourage all people to live according to the philosophy or belief that makes them the best they can be. I follow the law and if I see something that seems to be in opposition to that, I confront the person or, if that seems unwise, report the same to the local authorities. I help lost tourists in the city and I tip waitstaff and cabbies. I try not to be overly confrontational except when my own or other's rights as a human being are threatened. So in answer to your comment, I do not find any difficulty in my religious choices being a part of this society's fabric. And thank you for your posts on this thread. They have been very insightful.

[Gunny]

Gunny I grew up RC. I found organized JudeoChristian systems had few answers for the questions I was asking. So I went my own way and began asking questions of people I respected for the way they lived their life. I asked about how what they believed was active in their world. That is how I ended up on the path I am on now. What I did find is that this society, established in the USA by Europeans with a JudeoChristian background, is not at all antithetical to my beliefs or practices. I am motivated by my spiritual core to do the best I can to live a "good" life - to be a positive force in the world around me. I donate to the charities I feel are worthwhile. In my work, I help people achieve better health. I try to make my personal interactions positive. I vote in elections in the way I think best reflects the greater good of this society. And I encourage all people to live according to the philosophy or belief that makes them the best they can be. I follow the law and if I see something that seems to be in opposition to that, I confront the person or, if that seems unwise, report the same to the local authorities. I help lost tourists in the city and I tip waitstaff and cabbies. I try not to be overly confrontational except when my own or other's rights as a human being are threatened. So in answer to your comment, I do not find any difficulty in my religious choices being a part of this society's fabric. And thank you for your posts on this thread. They have been very insightful.

I wasn't questioning your beliefs. You asked an honest question. I've tried to give you an honest answer. But you have to admit it's rare when people can just have an honest conversation about religion. Usually turns into a troll-fest.

Now, if I were a superstitious sort ..... My ancestry is Celtic. People like to talk away all kinds of stuff, but I've never been able to talk my way away from that.

[Balu]

Initially Religion gave basic reference points for ethics and moral. Is it necessary nowadays? - I think that it is, as some societies start loosing them too rapidly. And it means that not every society is able to keep them. And as far as for this society is NOT a reliable instrument, there should be something above some of decisions of State Institutes, which can not guarantee everything. Religion CAN. This is the instrument tested within thousands years, and proved its reliability. But Practice is the only criteria of the Truth.

[revelarts]

The probability you point to seems to have gone sideways in the U.S.

What would you attribute to the super high crime and abortion rates?

Regards
DL


People take Christian faith less seriously in general than decades ago.
and certainly less seriously than after the great Awakenings. At this point we are practically a post Christian society.

But are you assuming most people in the U.S. are Christians?
Or that these things are higher among Christians?
I'm going to guess the 1st.

Concerning abortion Christians are the ones that highlight the moral issue. And have been trying to get it outlawed for decades. if it's outlawed the rates would drop significantly i suspect.

But whether or not people LIVE up to their professed morals on that or any issue is another story. But the rates are going down. several% since the 1990s with various factors are in play.

But if people lived there christian beliefs there'd be no unwed pregnancies among christians because there'd be no sex until marriage. Shows we've driven pretty far of track if we start by asking sexual ethics questions about abortions.


Concerning crimes. I'll just ask you a simple question.
It's 1 a.m. your on a dark street and you see 5 big guys milling around at the corner where your car is parked. And loud music coming out of the building you didn't notice you parked by when you arrived 8 hours earlier .
So you look up at the buildings sign to see what it is.
Are you more concerned if it the sign says.
Hardcase Bar and Pool Hall or 3rd Baptist of Hall St.?

Ask any judge how many young people who read their Bibles daily and that go to church regularly are in his court on hard crime cases.

But in general Crimes rates have actually gone down over the years. in real number and in portions (in every race BTW for those that need to know).

[AllieBaba]

The probability you point to seems to have gone sideways in the U.S.

What would you attribute to the super high crime and abortion rates?

Regards
DL Those high rates increased in step with our country's moving away from religiosity.

[bullypulpit]

Morality is not solely the purview of religion. One can, indeed, lead a moral life without religion.
Religion relies on the promise of a glorious afterlife in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife to encourage moral action. This leads to arbitrary interpretations as to just what their favorite invisible sky wizard's will is by demagogues of all stripes. This does nothing but lead to dispute, argumentation violence. And we've seen it time and again throughout human history as coreligionists of one view slaughtered those of another view because the others were apostate unbelievers. This is the legacy of religion.

An objective criteria for human morality lies in measuring the consequences of our action to those around us. The measure of more action is this human life in this world.

[bullypulpit]

The problem I see is reconciling paganism with a judeo-christian society.

There is nothing to reconcile Gunny. America was not founded on Christian ideals. All you need to do is read the writings of the Founders.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible...Some books on Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist."
-Benjamin Franklin

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length,...that Christianity is part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is inconrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed...What a conspiracy this, between Church and State. Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all. Sing Tantarara, rogues all!"
-Thomas Jefferson
"I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten...The delusion...on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favourite hope of an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own...the returning good sense of our country threatens abortion of their hopes and they (the preachers) believe that any portion of power confided to me (such as being elected president), will be excerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
-Thomas Jefferson

[revelarts]

http://utminers.utep.edu/mfernandez/images/Calvin%20and%20Hobbes%20Ethics.jpg

[revelarts]

https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiddler4him96.files.wo rdpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fcalvin-and-hobbes-relativism.gif%3Fw%3D404%26amp%3Bh%3D510&sp=aab9120a526ca157b547e804df9c066e

[revelarts]

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fyester.ly%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FBurglar-Guy.jpg&sp=e10a26d640ed4cf77d9bea5b228d30f4

[revelarts]

https://s3-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fwalkingchristian.com%2Fw p-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2F6a0133f0b2fdc2970b 01538e470805970b.jpg&sp=4805241a941f9ea1470ad23c2d601295

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Initially Religion gave basic reference points for ethics and moral.

Gnostic Christianity ties righteousness to equality.

http://gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm

Do you think that equality is a basic reference points for ethics and moral?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

People take Christian faith less seriously in general than decades ago.
and certainly less seriously than after the great Awakenings. At this point we are practically a post Christian society.

But are you assuming most people in the U.S. are Christians?
Or that these things are higher among Christians?
I'm going to guess the 1st.

Concerning abortion Christians are the ones that highlight the moral issue. And have been trying to get it outlawed for decades. if it's outlawed the rates would drop significantly i suspect.

But whether or not people LIVE up to their professed morals on that or any issue is another story. But the rates are going down. several% since the 1990s with various factors are in play.

But if people lived there christian beliefs there'd be no unwed pregnancies among christians because there'd be no sex until marriage. Shows we've driven pretty far of track if we start by asking sexual ethics questions about abortions.


Concerning crimes. I'll just ask you a simple question.
It's 1 a.m. your on a dark street and you see 5 big guys milling around at the corner where your car is parked. And loud music coming out of the building you didn't notice you parked by when you arrived 8 hours earlier .
So you look up at the buildings sign to see what it is.
Are you more concerned if it the sign says.
Hardcase Bar and Pool Hall or 3rd Baptist of Hall St.?

Ask any judge how many young people who read their Bibles daily and that go to church regularly are in his court on hard crime cases.

But in general Crimes rates have actually gone down over the years. in real number and in portions (in every race BTW for those that need to know).

Thanks for the reply. I will speak to this one quoted part as I think your other questions rhetoric.

I do agree with your first. Most Christians are just Christian by name and family tradition.

"Concerning abortion Christians are the ones that highlight the moral issue. And have been trying to get it outlawed for decades. if it's outlawed the rates would drop significantly i suspect."


Perhaps but you seem to have forgotten that the law was changed because too many women were dying at the hands of abortion butchers.

This brings us full circle to your first statement.

If more Christian parents and grandparents offered more help to pregnant Christian teens, the abortion rate would drop considerably.

My home town was primarily Catholic and it was rare indeed when a family offered to help their pregnant teen. Most parents either turned their basks on the girls completely or just offered to make arrangements for an abortion or adoption.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Those high rates increased in step with our country's moving away from religiosity.

Yet many countries who also moved away from religion went the other way.

Check British and other E.U. nations for instance.

Do you have any stats to show that you are not just pulling your opinion out of the air?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Morality is not solely the purview of religion. One can, indeed, lead a moral life without religion.
Religion relies on the promise of a glorious afterlife in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife to encourage moral action. This leads to arbitrary interpretations as to just what their favorite invisible sky wizard's will is by demagogues of all stripes. This does nothing but lead to dispute, argumentation violence. And we've seen it time and again throughout human history as coreligionists of one view slaughtered those of another view because the others were apostate unbelievers. This is the legacy of religion.

An objective criteria for human morality lies in measuring the consequences of our action to those around us. The measure of more action is this human life in this world.

Well put.

Would you say that Christianity has some of that legacy of slaughtering those of another view because the others were apostate unbelievers or just believers of some other God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D)

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

Thanks for the reply. I will speak to this one quoted part as I think your other questions rhetoric.

I do agree with your first. Most Christians are just Christian by name and family tradition.

"Concerning abortion Christians are the ones that highlight the moral issue. And have been trying to get it outlawed for decades. if it's outlawed the rates would drop significantly i suspect."

Perhaps but you seem to have forgotten that the law was changed because too many women were dying at the hands of abortion butchers.

This brings us full circle to your first statement.

If more Christian parents and grandparents offered more help to pregnant Christian teens, the abortion rate would drop considerably.

My home town was primarily Catholic and it was rare indeed when a family offered to help their pregnant teen. Most parents either turned their basks on the girls completely or just offered to make arrangements for an abortion or adoption.

Regards
DL

It's not a Christian act to turn your back on a your own child. And not a Christian solution to have an abortion.
If in fact that's was the common practice.

But you conveniently assumed key parts of my post were rhetorical and pulled sections that you thought easily fit you paradigm. not honest. but probably better than some of you past.
But it won't kill you to answer a question honestly that doesn't help your position.
Is your view so weak that an honest answer to the questions makes you create excuses for not answering?
"it was rhetorical" sheesh. lame dodge.

look
you asked
"The probability you point to seems to have gone sideways in the U.S.
What would you attribute to the super high crime and abortion rates?"
part of my reply was
"Concerning crimes. I'll just ask you a simple question.
It's 1 a.m. your on a dark street and you see 5 big guys milling around at the corner where your car is parked. And loud music coming out of the building you didn't notice you parked by when you arrived 8 hours earlier .
So you look up at the buildings sign to see what it is.
Are you more concerned if it the sign says.
Hardcase Bar and Pool Hall or 3rd Baptist of Hall St.?"

simple question only 2 options.
but you RUN. lame.

But OK whatever, concerning your abortion question. Abortion pre-roe-v-wade. there were not thousands of women dying or harmed from "back alley" abortions those were simply lies to try to sway public opinion to get a law passed .

Despite the charges surrounding the abortion practice of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/an-awkward-silence-over-murder-trial-of-kermit-gosnell-in-philadelphia/2013/04/15/70528c2e-a5df-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html), there is little evidence that abortion caused high rates of morbidity or mortality before Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973. According to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html), for instance, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women in 1930 — a relatively small number in a time before antibiotics, when estimates are that at least 1 million abortions were performed per year. By 1940, the number of deaths had fallen under 1,700, and by 1965, below 200. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-abortion-rights/2013/04/18/bd53c884-a5e5-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

"...Won By Love." Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a cofounder of NARAL, blew the myth wide open in his 1997 book, "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist." He admits that early abortion-rights advocates totally fabricated the number of women dying from back-alley and wire-hanger abortions. The 10,000 figure they used to affect public opinion was actually closer to 250, he writes. The actual figure in 1972 for deaths from illegal abortion was 39, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Nathanson also admitted to fabricating polls that indicated public support for abortion rights....." Abortion Myth Perpetuated - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/new-york/abortion-myth-perpetuated/60958/)



Nathanson says that he and his associates also invented the “nice, round shocking figure” for the number of deaths from illegal abortions: [3] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#3)
It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.
Research confirms that the actual number of abortion deaths in the twenty-five years prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year, with a high of 388 in 1948. [4] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#4) In I966, before the first state legalized abortion, 120 mothers died from abortion. [5] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#5) By 1972 abortion was still illegal in 80 percent of the country, but the use of antibiotics had greatly reduced the risk. Hence, the number dropped to 39 maternal deaths from abortion that year. [6] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#6) Dr. Christopher Tietze, a prominent statistician associated with Planned Parenthood, maintained that these are accurate figures, with a margin of error no greater than 10 percent. [7] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#7)
http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It's not a Christian act to turn your back on a your own child. And not a Christian solution to have an abortion.
If in fact that's was the common practice.

But you conveniently assumed key parts of my post were rhetorical and pulled sections that you thought easily fit you paradigm. not honest. but probably better than some of you past.
But it won't kill you to answer a question honestly that doesn't help your position.
Is your view so weak that an honest answer to the questions makes you create excuses for not answering?
"it was rhetorical" sheesh. lame dodge.

look
you asked
"The probability you point to seems to have gone sideways in the U.S.
What would you attribute to the super high crime and abortion rates?"
part of my reply was
"Concerning crimes. I'll just ask you a simple question.
It's 1 a.m. your on a dark street and you see 5 big guys milling around at the corner where your car is parked. And loud music coming out of the building you didn't notice you parked by when you arrived 8 hours earlier .
So you look up at the buildings sign to see what it is.
Are you more concerned if it the sign says.
Hardcase Bar and Pool Hall or 3rd Baptist of Hall St.?"

simple question only 2 options.
but you RUN. lame.

But OK whatever, concerning your abortion question. Abortion pre-roe-v-wade. there were not thousands of women dying or harmed from "back alley" abortions those were simply lies to try to sway public opinion to get a law passed .

Despite the charges surrounding the abortion practice of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/an-awkward-silence-over-murder-trial-of-kermit-gosnell-in-philadelphia/2013/04/15/70528c2e-a5df-11e2-a8e2-5b98cb59187f_story.html), there is little evidence that abortion caused high rates of morbidity or mortality before Roe v. Wade legalized the procedure in 1973. According to the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html), for instance, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women in 1930 — a relatively small number in a time before antibiotics, when estimates are that at least 1 million abortions were performed per year. By 1940, the number of deaths had fallen under 1,700, and by 1965, below 200. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-abortion-rights/2013/04/18/bd53c884-a5e5-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html

"...Won By Love." Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a cofounder of NARAL, blew the myth wide open in his 1997 book, "Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist." He admits that early abortion-rights advocates totally fabricated the number of women dying from back-alley and wire-hanger abortions. The 10,000 figure they used to affect public opinion was actually closer to 250, he writes. The actual figure in 1972 for deaths from illegal abortion was 39, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Nathanson also admitted to fabricating polls that indicated public support for abortion rights....." Abortion Myth Perpetuated - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/new-york/abortion-myth-perpetuated/60958/)



Nathanson says that he and his associates also invented the “nice, round shocking figure” for the number of deaths from illegal abortions: [3] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#3)
It was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws [against abortion] eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.
Research confirms that the actual number of abortion deaths in the twenty-five years prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year, with a high of 388 in 1948. [4] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#4) In I966, before the first state legalized abortion, 120 mothers died from abortion. [5] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#5) By 1972 abortion was still illegal in 80 percent of the country, but the use of antibiotics had greatly reduced the risk. Hence, the number dropped to 39 maternal deaths from abortion that year. [6] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#6) Dr. Christopher Tietze, a prominent statistician associated with Planned Parenthood, maintained that these are accurate figures, with a margin of error no greater than 10 percent. [7] (http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12#7)
http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/12

Whatever the number was, he courts decided it was to much.

I am sure that that was not the only factor.

Freedom of choice and the fact that most of the population did not n a huge increase in orphanages was likely included. The courts like also saw families turning their backs on their children and saw legal abortion as the lesser of all the evils.

Would you take kindly to someone forcing you to have a child while not offering the wherewithal to raise it properly?

You are likely aware of all the negative statistics that go along with single parent raised children. Perhaps the courts also had that information. I don't know but courts are usually quite thorough.

Regards
DL

[Max R.]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.
Short answer: No.

However, the next question is "Define living an ethical life". What would an ethical life be to you, Wiccan? How do you determine what is ethical or not? Not just for you, but for others.

Is it simply following the law? Should that include following the spirit of the law too? What if you disagree with the law? Then what? Is it ethical to violate the law or should you comply, but protest it and advocate change?

[WiccanLiberal]

Short answer: No.

However, the next question is "Define living an ethical life". What would an ethical life be to you, Wiccan? How do you determine what is ethical or not? Not just for you, but for others.

Is it simply following the law? Should that include following the spirit of the law too? What if you disagree with the law? Then what? Is it ethical to violate the law or should you comply, but protest it and advocate change?
I think I addressed some of that above in a reply to Gunny. Generally I do follow the law. It provides a framework to define right and wrong for those without a good moral compass. But I think I know what is ethical with out resort to the absolute letter of the law. There are occasions when I might not violate the law but work to make a change in it. After all, breaking a law you believe is wrong may set a poor example and encourage others to do the same and creates additional work for law enforcement. Advocating for a change will bring attention to your concern in a legal way. Generally I look at situations to find the solution that promotes the most positive outcome. And yes there are times when that is not possible and no I don't always succeed. Doesn't mean I stop trying.

[AllieBaba]

Gnostic Christianity ties righteousness to equality.

http://gnosis.org/library/ephip.htm

Do you think that equality is a basic reference points for ethics and moral?

Regards
DL

No.

[Gunny]

I think I addressed some of that above in a reply to Gunny. Generally I do follow the law. It provides a framework to define right and wrong for those without a good moral compass. But I think I know what is ethical with out resort to the absolute letter of the law. There are occasions when I might not violate the law but work to make a change in it. After all, breaking a law you believe is wrong may set a poor example and encourage others to do the same and creates additional work for law enforcement. Advocating for a change will bring attention to your concern in a legal way. Generally I look at situations to find the solution that promotes the most positive outcome. And yes there are times when that is not possible and no I don't always succeed. Doesn't mean I stop trying.

I'm not sure I would use our laws as any kind of ethical barometer. We have plenty of unethical laws, starting with abortion.

[Drummond]

I've only skimmed this thread so far.

My answer, for what it's worth ... religion is necessary for an ethical life, for the sake of grounding the morality involved .. so that God's full spiritual inspiration acts as the proper guide.

That said - I'd say two things.

One ... since I believe 'grounding' is important, then in the shorter term, it would be possible to lead a life that appears to be ethical, without religion. But I suggest that such an existence would not be grounded nearly as solidly. It'd be possible to be tempted away from it, far more easily.

Two ... when you consider what Islam has done to the world .. and that in certain parts of the world, it is dominant, with people having precious chance to veer away from it towards any other religion .. the answer might therefore be 'no'. Unless terrorism is 'ethical', of course ??

This thread reminds me of a film I watched several years ago called 'Time Changer'. It was about an author who wanted to write a book arguing precisely the point that it was possible to lead an ethical life without religion being involved. He was a seminary professor, living in the 1890's ... and needed a committee to unanimously approve his work for the book to be published.

So, in the story, one member disagreed, and so blocked publication. This individual took the author to his house, transported him in time (.. as you do ..) to the year 2000, to spend a few days in 'modern' society. The moral of the experience was meant to show him that successive generations, in becoming increasingly estranged from God, were slowly condemning Mankind to oblivion at the hands of the Devil.

Thus, the book, originally called 'The Changing Times', was rewritten by the returned time traveller as 'Time Changer', to argue the very opposite proposition to that first intended ...

TRAILER --


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnUgDNPO2I

I can't find a YouTube link for the full film, or anything like it -- YouTube has blocked other attempts to add it. Still, it's well worth watching. View it as an entertaining science fiction film, or, one with its intended moral purpose taken on board.

[DragonStryk72]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

No, it isn't. My evidence is Noir. Although he's an Atheist, and committed to such, he always seems to act in a manner that is both morally and ethically sound.

Now, the problem of adherence is a problem of dogmatic vs. faithful adherence. Any study of the Bible quickly uncovers the point that, truthfully, God doesn't want a church or temple, He just wants our faith, and for us to act in a moral way, with few real hard and fast rules. Pray to Him first, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill, and be nice to your parents, and do your best to do as they ask. Pretty simple and straightforward, and yet, Leviticus happened, which essentially necessitated Jesus to show up with the much needed CTFD approach.

While the Bible certainly has great lessons in moral and ethical behavior, it's incredibly arrogant to believe that one religion or another, or even religion in general, is the sole purveyor of how to act in a civil manner. In the end, the same core principles are generally agreed upon as being good.

[Gunny]

I've only skimmed this thread so far.

My answer, for what it's worth ... religion is necessary for an ethical life, for the sake of grounding the morality involved .. so that God's full spiritual inspiration acts as the proper guide.

That said - I'd say two things.

One ... since I believe 'grounding' is important, then in the shorter term, it would be possible to lead a life that appears to be ethical, without religion. But I suggest that such an existence would not be grounded nearly as solidly. It'd be possible to be tempted away from it, far more easily.

Two ... when you consider what Islam has done to the world .. and that in certain parts of the world, it is dominant, with people having precious chance to veer away from it towards any other religion .. the answer might therefore be 'no'. Unless terrorism is 'ethical', of course ??

This thread reminds me of a film I watched several years ago called 'Time Changer'. It was about an author who wanted to write a book arguing precisely the point that it was possible to lead an ethical life without religion being involved. He was a seminary professor, living in the 1890's ... and needed a committee to unanimously approve his work for the book to be published.

So, in the story, one member disagreed, and so blocked publication. This individual took the author to his house, transported him in time (.. as you do ..) to the year 2000, to spend a few days in 'modern' society. The moral of the experience was meant to show him that successive generations, in becoming increasingly estranged from God, were slowly condemning Mankind to oblivion at the hands of the Devil.

Thus, the book, originally called 'The Changing Times', was rewritten by the returned time traveller as 'Time Changer', to argue the very opposite proposition to that first intended ...

TRAILER --


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnUgDNPO2I

I can't find a YouTube link for the full film, or anything like it -- YouTube has blocked other attempts to add it. Still, it's well worth watching. View it as an entertaining science fiction film, or, one with its intended moral purpose taken on board.

Religion is not necessary. A common belief is. Historically, religion has been the basis of those common beliefs. They are still a construct of society and are not inherent in Man.

The biggest problem we have with ethics today is the progressives have none, and pull BS crap like they did over a Confederate battle ensign. They re-write history giving NO allowance for what we were and thought THEN. They judge people from 200 years ago by their own warped standards of today. If you were born in 1830s South Carolina, what do you think your view on slavery would be? It was a fact of life and we brought it with us from England. Slavery still exists today, yet we ignore that in favor of catering to the whining minority in this country.

It's like everything else in this country. There was nothing wrong with it until some whiny-ass shit got his eyelash bent over the matter. Maybe those "slavery descendents" ought to go sue the Africans that sold them to the Dutch slave traders? But they don't have any money, do they? They could just go back to Africa except the Africans won't accept them. They love to wear all their little African outfits and red, green and black hats around here and true Africans consider them mongrels.

Point is, we have allowed the progressive left to warp EVERYTHING out of context.

[Drummond]

Religion is not necessary. A common belief is. Historically, religion has been the basis of those common beliefs. They are still a construct of society and are not inherent in Man.

The biggest problem we have with ethics today is the progressives have none, and pull BS crap like they did over a Confederate battle ensign. They re-write history giving NO allowance for what we were and thought THEN. They judge people from 200 years ago by their own warped standards of today. If you were born in 1830s South Carolina, what do you think your view on slavery would be? It was a fact of life and we brought it with us from England. Slavery still exists today, yet we ignore that in favor of catering to the whining minority in this country.

It's like everything else in this country. There was nothing wrong with it until some whiny-ass shit got his eyelash bent over the matter. Maybe those "slavery descendents" ought to go sue the Africans that sold them to the Dutch slave traders? But they don't have any money, do they? They could just go back to Africa except the Africans won't accept them. They love to wear all their little African outfits and red, green and black hats around here and true Africans consider them mongrels.

Point is, we have allowed the progressive left to warp EVERYTHING out of context.

I think that the problem is one of grounding. If ethics aren't seen as changeable, then that's OK. However, without something telling you that some standards are unshakeably right, and some wrong, then influences can be brought to bear to steer you away from those ethics.

And surely your own case shows how relatively easy it can be done ? 'Progressives' .. aren't they more likely to be atheists, fighting for secularism ? You say 'progressives have none', as in no ethics. Yes. Exactly.

Islamists have their common belief. How 'ethical' are terrorists ?

[Drummond]

No, it isn't. My evidence is Noir. Although he's an Atheist, and committed to such, he always seems to act in a manner that is both morally and ethically sound.

What are Noir's views, for example, on gay marriage ? Abortion ? Strict gun laws, robbing you of the means to defend yourself and loved ones ?


While the Bible certainly has great lessons in moral and ethical behavior, it's incredibly arrogant to believe that one religion or another, or even religion in general, is the sole purveyor of how to act in a civil manner. In the end, the same core principles are generally agreed upon as being good.

I see your point as being applicable in a rather limited sense. But when it comes to moral and ethical standards, I'd take Christianity over Islam (founded by a paedophile, inspiring terrorist acts to this day) any day of the week ....

[Max R.]

I'm not sure I would use our laws as any kind of ethical barometer. We have plenty of unethical laws, starting with abortion.
As determined by whom?

Even the Bible doesn't consider conception as life, only blood: Deuteronomy 12:23

[DragonStryk72]

What are Noir's views, for example, on gay marriage ? Abortion ? Strict gun laws, robbing you of the means to defend yourself and loved ones ?

Well, actually, marriage by the state is neither ethical nor unethical, it's a contract between two consenting adults. Gun control would not be out of line with Christ's view on violence, and Noir isn't robbing anything from anyone.



I see your point as being applicable in a rather limited sense. But when it comes to moral and ethical standards, I'd take Christianity over Islam (founded by a paedophile, inspiring terrorist acts to this day) any day of the week ....

Well, different people and cultures are going to find different meaning, just like how folks like Gnostic and Aug seem to only see the worst possible interpretation of the bible and try to browbeat people with it.

[revelarts]

i have to say i think Drummond is right in principal.

Here's the thing that the question and many have danced around that Drummond has put his finger on.

God and Jesus christ aren't just equal options among many "religions".
God Jesus Christ the apostles and prophets
are the truth. the foundation of all reality.

So all the admission of people having morals without "religion" are true, but there is NO morality with God.
It's like asking, can people have healthy breathing without "religion"? Well yes people can. But would they have healthy breath without God, No. God made the person and the lungs in 1st place.

Other religions, philosophies and peoples hearts may touch on true morals here and there but ultimately ALL morals come from God. period.
And where people's personal ideas, other religions and other philosophies claim something is moral or immoral that does NOT agree with Jesus Christ and Scriptures then those teachings are wrong. Those "morals" are wrong and not morals at all.

Many people around the world might agree that stealing is wrong. that's Great.
But how many would agree on God's morals of divorce, sex before marriage, lust, blasphemy, torture, equality of humanity, pride, disobedience to parents, truce breaking, slander, gossip, envy, mercy to enemies...

The fact is whatever morals a person professes to have it's NOT enough in the sight of God and never will be.
If all people are concerned about is societies living in tolerance and relatively peacefully with others then a general smattering of good morals and human kindness here an there help greases the skids.
But it we want to be considered moral before God we must ask Him to cleanse us our our sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. Who's the only truly moral human to ever live. the creator of all mankind and creator of morals. God in the flesh who died to wash the immorality away from the world. Those that believe are made moral in the sight of God.

[revelarts]

Drummond here's the whole film.
It is very good.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21bLarZJB1k

[Max R.]

Drummond here's the whole film.
It is very good.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21bLarZJB1k

Any boobies in it? ;)



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295725/

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No.

Every non-Sharia legal system in the world seem to think that equality under the law is moral and righteous.

Why do you think it is not?

Regards
DL

[Noir]

The moral of the experience was meant to show him that successive generations, in becoming increasingly estranged from God, were slowly condemning Mankind to oblivion at the hands of the Devil.

Did the man take back with him any positive moral insights from the future?

[Drummond]

Drummond here's the whole film.
It is very good.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21bLarZJB1k

BRILLIANT ! I thought I had no chance of seeing it again ... I couldn't spot any video clip that showed the whole film, and DVD's would be coded for NTSC standards (used in America and a handful of other countries) and not the PAL transmission standard, which the UK uses.

Revelarts .. many thanks. :salute:

[Drummond]

Did the man take back with him any positive moral insights from the future?

Well, I gather from Revelarts (I've yet to view it, as I type ..) that you can judge this for yourself.

The point was that the time-travelling seminary professor learned that you cannot separate belief in, and adherence to, Christianity, from leading not only a good life, but one in which the Devil will ultimately win out.

See the film. He saw the comparative Godlessness of today's age, saw the great damage this had done, and he was also able to perceive that with each passing generation, the damage was accelerating. See, towards the end of the film, the part where he's giving a speech to the audience, after having learned his lesson. The younger the audience member, the less receptive they were to his pro-Christian lecture, and the more sullen they looked.

You'll see that at the very end of the film, the owner of the time machine tries to link it with future decades. As her keeps trying, he keeps failing ... the moral being that, without the great lesson being learned, Satan succeeds in killing off Mankind's future. Time itself has ceased to exist for Mankind on this Earth.

It's a powerful film, Noir. I thoroughly recommend that you watch it.

[Drummond]

Any boobies in it? ;)



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295725/

Only the non-Christian idiots ....

[Drummond]

Well, actually, marriage by the state is neither ethical nor unethical, it's a contract between two consenting adults. Gun control would not be out of line with Christ's view on violence, and Noir isn't robbing anything from anyone.

You see no problem with gay marriage ? Or with the great slaughter of innocents, which abortion arranges ?

Gun control. Less clear-cut, I grant you. Nonetheless, usage of guns is a neutral exercise. They can be used to fight evil.

Is fighting evil in line with Christian belief, or not ?


Well, different people and cultures are going to find different meaning, just like how folks like Gnostic and Aug seem to only see the worst possible interpretation of the bible and try to browbeat people with it.

Yes, they do. they have to amp up their remarks and their attacks ... because they're so weak ! In 'Aug's' case, when he didn't win the outright victories he somehow believed he was going to get (??) ... he resorted to insults, and in facing my posts .. he DIDN'T face them. He just, for the most part, ran away.

He's probably still running. I do doubt we'll see him here again.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The moral of the experience was meant to show him that successive generations, in becoming increasingly estranged from God, were slowly condemning Mankind to oblivion at the hands of the Devil. .

Can you speculate for us why God is allowing Satan full rein and dominion over us and why God gave Satan the power to deceive the whole world?


Regards

DL

[AllieBaba]

Can you speculate for us why God is allowing Satan full rein and dominion over us and why God gave Satan the power to deceive the whole world?


Regards

DL

Satan hasn't deceived the whole world. Nor does he have full rein and dominion.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Satan hasn't deceived the whole world. Nor does he have full rein and dominion.

So you do not believe Revelation that says Satan was given that power nor the temptation of Christ which requires that Satan have dominion and is a large part of that scenario.

I am pleased that you do no believe most of the bible in a literal way.

Reads
DL

[fj1200]

Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life?

No. Anyone can live up to societal norms.


I'm not sure ethics can exist without commitment to the attainment of an ultimately unreachable perfection of kind thought and behavior. And I've yet to see non-religious people embrace that concept.

Disagree. There are ethical atheists and unethical followers of -<insert religion>-.

[AllieBaba]

No. Anyone can live up to societal norms.



Disagree. There are ethical atheists and unethical followers of -<insert religion="">-.No, there aren't. Ethics themselves are grounded in religious morality.

</insert>

[Gunny]

I think that the problem is one of grounding. If ethics aren't seen as changeable, then that's OK. However, without something telling you that some standards are unshakeably right, and some wrong, then influences can be brought to bear to steer you away from those ethics.

And surely your own case shows how relatively easy it can be done ? 'Progressives' .. aren't they more likely to be atheists, fighting for secularism ? You say 'progressives have none', as in no ethics. Yes. Exactly.

Islamists have their common belief. How 'ethical' are terrorists ?

I don't consider them not changeable. Not my point. My point is that even if they change, you can't judge others by the ethics of their time using today's standard. You have to judge people based on the times they lived in.

[fj1200]

No, there aren't. Ethics themselves are grounded in religious morality.

Your last point is debatable. To your first; there aren't what? Ethical atheists? Unethical Christians (for example)?



I noticed part of my post above didn't go through as intended.

[AllieBaba]

Your last point is debatable. To your first; there aren't what? Ethical atheists? Unethical Christians (for example)?



I noticed part of my post above didn't go through as intended.
No, I'm not saying that there aren't unethical Christians, or ethical atheists. My point is that ethics don't exist without religious morality. Atheists will act accordingly, as they are expected to act and work, as it pertains to ethical behavior...but there is nothing in an atheist outlook that would lead to the development of ethical guidelines.

If you doubt it, take a look at every atheist regime that has ever existed. There are no ethics in atheism. Atheists will abide by the law, but ethics are not atheist constructs.

[Noir]

If you doubt it, take a look at every atheist regime that has ever existed. There are no ethics in atheism. Atheists will abide by the law, but ethics are not atheist constructs.

Nor are ethics thiest contracts. They are simply human constructs.

[Max R.]

Nor are ethics thiest contracts. They are simply human constructs.
Ergo, if all ethics are human constructs, then you and I are free to construct our own ethics, correct?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ergo, if all ethics are human constructs, then you and I are free to construct our own ethics, correct?

That is what Jesus recommended. To write the laws of the God we follow in our hearts.

That has always been the Gnostic Christian way and the way of all free tinkers.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL

[Max R.]

That is what Jesus recommended. To write the laws of the God we follow in our hearts.

That has always been the Gnostic Christian way and the way of all free tinkers.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DLYou quote that which you do not believe. More proof you are a hypocrite, DL.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You quote that which you do not believe. More proof you are a hypocrite, DL.

If I did not believe it I would not quote it but believe whatever you like.

I guess you do not realize that I would be rather foolish of me to quote what I do not believe and promote.

Care to flesh out your accusation with a motive?

Regards
DL

[Noir]

Ergo, if all ethics are human constructs, then you and I are free to construct our own ethics, correct?

Not in the way you are implying.

What do ISIS have to say about physics?
What do ISIS have to say about literature?
What do ISIS have to say about ethics?

I don't think they have anything to actually say about physics or literature, but if they did they almost certainly wouldn't be worth considering. How is this not the same as regards to the statements they do make about ethics?

These sorts of discussions are constrained by our sense, logic, and understanding in almost every subject, but some like to put certain topics (like ethics) out-of-bounds for this, when it is not.

[Max R.]

Not in the way you are implying.

What do ISIS have to say about physics?
What do ISIS have to say about literature?
What do ISIS have to say about ethics?

I don't think they have anything to actually say about physics or literature, but if they did they almost certainly wouldn't be worth considering. How is this not the same as regards to the statements they do make about ethics?

These sorts of discussions are constrained by our sense, logic, and understanding in almost every subject, but some like to put certain topics (like ethics) out-of-bounds for this, when it is not.
Nice try derailing to terrorists. So do you or don't you believe all ethics are human constructs and, if so, are you or aren't you free to construct your own ethics?

Please stick to the question and not derail again, Noir.

[Noir]

Nice try derailing to terrorists. So do you or don't you believe all ethics are human constructs and, if so, are you or aren't you free to construct your own ethics? Please stick to the question and not derail again, Noir.

Apparently that answer was too much, more simply - I am free to construct my own ethics in the same sense that i am free to construct my own mathematics.

[revelarts]

Apparently that answer was too much, more simply - I am free to construct my own ethics in the same sense that i am free to construct my own mathematics.


So you can universally prove -as you can 2+2=4...
- That homosexuality is "moral"?
- That sex outside of marriage is "moral"?
- That abortion is "moral"?
- That some wars are "moral" others are not?
- That killing animals for food is "immoral"?

[Noir]

So you can universally prove -as you can 2+2=4...
- That homosexuality is "moral"?
- That sex outside of marriage is "moral"?
- That abortion is "moral"?
- That some wars are "moral" others are not?
- That killing animals for food is "immoral"?

No, because morality *isnt* mathematics, but neither is literature etc. Does that mean we have nothing to say about literature?

Put another way - mathmatics, like morals, are (or at least should be) universal. There is no such thing as Muslim physics, or Christian chemistry and so on, in the same respect there is no such thing as Buddhist morality.

[Max R.]

Apparently that answer was too much, more simply - I am free to construct my own ethics in the same sense that i am free to construct my own mathematics.

Another derail and dodging the question, but let's go with this one. Mathematics are universal. Pi is Pi no matter what language, species or galaxy one resides. Pi may be expressed in decimal, binary or duodecimal systems, but it's still Pi.

Ethics, if human constructs as you suggest, apply only to humans. Yes, according to you, you can construct your own ethics, but if you construct your own math, you'll just look insane.

[Max R.]

No, because morality *isnt* mathematics, but neither is literature etc. Does that mean we have nothing to say about literature?

Put another way - mathmatics, like morals, are (or at least should be) universal. There is no such thing as Muslim physics, or Christian chemistry and so on, in the same respect there is no such thing as Buddhist morality.
Are you backpedaling? First you say ethics (morals) are human constructs, now you seem to be saying they are not. Which is it? Can you construct your own ethics like math or not?

[Jeff]

Having met all sorts of people, I have certainly seen my share of those who are truly good people and a few real dirtbags. I have my own opinions but I am interested in perspectives outside myself. Is a professed religious faith necessary for one to live an ethical life? The corollary is does adhering to a religion ensure an ethical approach? Try to adhere to a philosophical and non flame approach. There's enough heat this week and I can go to a BBQ if I want to see flames.

I have not read the 6 pages of replies but to me yes it is, quite honestly religion has saved my life. I was on the wrong road no doubt, but once I asked God into my life things changed. No i didn't get clean and sober right away, heck it took years but I wasn't doing the things that where going to kill me either. If you look at the 10 commandments, they are not a bad thing to live by, if you get a good church family you have support at all times, not saying going to church is good or bad, I have seen many that go to church 3 times a week and have no idea what Christianity is about. But for me religion ( or Christianity, the bible ) is a good guide line to run my life by, and as I said if you live the way it tells you to well you aren't doing to much wrong that is for sure.

[Noir]

Another derail and dodging the question, but let's go with this one. Mathematics are universal. Pi is Pi no matter what language, species or galaxy one resides. Pi may be expressed in decimal, binary or duodecimal systems, but it's still Pi.

Ethics, if human constructs as you suggest, apply only to humans. Yes, according to you, you can construct your own ethics, but if you construct your own math, you'll just look insane.

Thats my point exactly. You *can* construct your own ethics, but if you decide that in your own ethics that cutting out the eyes of newborn children is the ethical thing to do, you are insane. This implies a framework to ethics that is there to be known.


Are you backpedaling? First you say ethics (morals) are human constructs, now you seem to be saying they are not. Which is it? Can you construct your own ethics like math or not?

Mathmatics is a human construct and concept, mathematical axioms are not. This is a very important distinction. I would argue the same applies to ethics.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ergo, if all ethics are human constructs, then you and I are free to construct our own ethics, correct?

Not really.

You are born with instincts to survive and those guide your morals.Yo default t cooperation because thet is the best survival strategy.

Once you grow up and begin thinking instead of just following your instincts, then you can choose or create your moral and ethics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You quote that which you do not believe. More proof you are a hypocrite, DL.

So now you know what I believe more than I do.

And you just chastised another for derailing.

Interesting, pot to kettle.

Rears
DL

[fj1200]

No, I'm not saying that there aren't unethical Christians, or ethical atheists. My point is that ethics don't exist without religious morality. Atheists will act accordingly, as they are expected to act and work, as it pertains to ethical behavior...but there is nothing in an atheist outlook that would lead to the development of ethical guidelines.

If you doubt it, take a look at every atheist regime that has ever existed. There are no ethics in atheism. Atheists will abide by the law, but ethics are not atheist constructs.

OK. As I said it's debatable that ethics are solely tied to religious morality as you insist. It doesn't take religious morality to recognize an individual's natural rights; it doesn't take a god to tell me that killing another human is wrong. How about I point to theistic regimes to disprove your posit; I only need to point to many Islam-based societies that show the folly of government and religion being combined but I could also point to some Christian-based societies that lacked ethics.

Riddle me this; was George Washington an ethical man? He owned slaves.

[fj1200]

Ergo, if all ethics are human constructs, then you and I are free to construct our own ethics, correct?

Of course we are free to construct our own ethics. It doesn't mean that you won't end up in jail though.


You are born with instincts...

Humans are not born with instincts.

[Kathianne]

Of course we are free to construct our own ethics. It doesn't mean that you won't end up in jail though.



Humans are not born with instincts.

Call them reflexes or instincts, same difference. They are there for survival, a few:

1. Rooting
2. Startle
3. Aquatic

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Humans are not born with instincts.

How does a baby know to take the nipple?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Call them reflexes or instincts, same difference. They are there for survival, a few:

1. Rooting
2. Startle
3. Aquatic

And more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

Call them reflexes or instincts, same difference. They are there for survival, a few:

There is a difference between the two.


How does a baby know to take the nipple?

Learned behavior as your video suggests.

[Drummond]

Thats my point exactly. You *can* construct your own ethics, but if you decide that in your own ethics that cutting out the eyes of newborn children is the ethical thing to do, you are insane. This implies a framework to ethics that is there to be known.

What it says is that ethics have an 'absolute' basis. That they're not abstracts, that, therefore, they aren't fully constructable by individuals or even societies.


Mathmatics is a human construct and concept, mathematical axioms are not. This is a very important distinction. I would argue the same applies to ethics.

Realities of the Universe are self-evidently true. How are they scientifically defined .. postulated .. how do we best describe the nature of the Universe ?

We do so ... MATHEMATICALLY.

Is the Universe a 'human construct and concept', or, rather more than that ? If all of humanity died tomorrow, would the Universe cease to exist ? Its structure, its properties, would continue on .. and the mathematical underpinning of HOW it does, would continue right along with it.

[Max R.]

Of course we are free to construct our own ethics. It doesn't mean that you won't end up in jail though.True about jail, but that's law. It used to be illegal to teach blacks to read. Was that ethical? According to those at the time who believe in racial superiority/inferiority, it was.

The question refers to a "universal" set of ethics or are all ethics situational and determined by majority? If so, the ban on teaching blacks to read was, by the latter definition, ethical.


Humans are not born with instincts.
Not like animals, but we do seem to have some.

Example: http://listverse.com/2012/01/28/top-10-human-reflexes-and-natural-instincts/

[Noir]

What it says is that ethics have an 'absolute' basis. That they're not abstracts, that, therefore, they aren't fully constructable by individuals or even societies.

Ethics do have an absolute basis, yes.




Realities of the Universe are self-evidently true. How are they scientifically defined .. postulated .. how do we best describe the nature of the Universe ?

We do so ... MATHEMATICALLY.

Is the Universe a 'human construct and concept', or, rather more than that ? If all of humanity died tomorrow, would the Universe cease to exist ? Its structure, its properties, would continue on .. and the mathematical underpinning of HOW it does, would continue right along with it.

The same can be said for ethics, nutrition, and countless other human (and universal) concepts.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

There is a difference between the two.



Learned behavior as your video suggests.

It suggests no such thing and who is showing the baby how to suckle. Did you teach your children how?

Regards
DEL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What it says is that ethics have an 'absolute' basis. That they're not abstracts, that, therefore, they aren't fully constructable by individuals or even societies.



Name a couple of these absolute moral tenets please so that we can know of what you are talking about.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ethics do have an absolute basis, yes.



Please show what that absolute base is or expand on what you mean.

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

True about jail, but that's law. It used to be illegal to teach blacks to read. Was that ethical? According to those at the time who believe in racial superiority/inferiority, it was.

The question refers to a "universal" set of ethics or are all ethics situational and determined by majority? If so, the ban on teaching blacks to read was, by the latter definition, ethical.

Which doesn't mean that you aren't free to construct your own ethics. Just as your example suggests; a particular group constructed their own ethics of superiority and codified those ethics in law. I'll argue that "universal" ethics don't require governmental enforcement.

I can agree that ethics can be situational but attainment of a majority doesn't make them so.


Not like animals, but we do seem to have some.

Example: http://listverse.com/2012/01/28/top-10-human-reflexes-and-natural-instincts/

Those appear to be reflexes and not instincts.


It suggests no such thing and who is showing the baby how to suckle. Did you teach your children how?

Not me personally but I was in the room. The child is presented with the nipple and soon learns that particular behavior gives milk.

And your video did suggest that; the babies were presented with an activity that showed the yellow triangle as good and helpful and the blue square as bad. Twas no surprise that the baby learned that the yellow triangle was good and so chose it as he/she was taught; the baby didn't instinctively know that yellow triangles are good. :)

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Which doesn't mean that you aren't free to construct your own ethics. Just as your example suggests; a particular group constructed their own ethics of superiority and codified those ethics in law. I'll argue that "universal" ethics don't require governmental enforcement.

I can agree that ethics can be situational but attainment of a majority doesn't make them so.



Those appear to be reflexes and not instincts.



Not me personally but I was in the room. The child is presented with the nipple and soon learns that particular behavior gives milk.

And your video did suggest that; the babies were presented with an activity that showed the yellow triangle as good and helpful and the blue square as bad. Twas no surprise that the baby learned that the yellow triangle was good and so chose it as he/she was taught; the baby didn't instinctively know that yellow triangles are good. :)

LOL.

Of course not. It had to analyse the situation and choose according to his instinct as to what he would like to be treated by each player.

As to the nipple, dogs, cats and all other animals seem to instinctively know the how and where of it.

Are you suggesting that we are less bright or have fewer instincts than the lower animals?

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

LOL.

Of course not. It had to analyse the situation and choose according to his instinct as to what he would like to be treated by each player.

As to the nipple, dogs, cats and all other animals seem to instinctively know the how and where of it.

Are you suggesting that we are less bright or have fewer instincts than the lower animals?

Regards
DL

I see your skills in selective interpretation haven't diminished. All I'm suggesting is that humans do not have instincts as animals do and I haven't seen anything that would have me change what was discussed in my sociology class ages ago. It takes a horse an hour to learn to walk; humans a year. Baby monkeys can recognize where a ball goes after it's taken away; babies do not have that ability as early. Animals need to be able to survive more quickly than human babies; an infant is utterly helpless at birth. If you think those examples means that we are less bright then I'm not sure where to go from here.

[Drummond]

Name a couple of these absolute moral tenets please so that we can know of what you are talking about.

Regards
DL

Seriously ??

Well ... not telling lies, is one. Not stealing is another.

One could have argued - if one was an atheist - that these are just man-made inventions, having no substance to them beyond the fact of their invention. Yet, no society can viably exist, no human existence can have decent worth, unless these are adhered to .. no matter what the complexities of the society in question.

So, HOW are they mere 'inventions' ... and how, therefore, considering the above, can they qualify as less than absolutes ?

And, yes. Religion insists upon their adherence (unless you're intent upon following a devious aspect of Islam, anyway ..)

[Noir]

Seriously ?? Well ... not telling lies, is one. Not stealing is another. One could have argued - if one was an atheist - that these are just man-made inventions, having no substance to them beyond the fact of their invention. Yet, no society can viably exist, no human existence can have decent worth, unless these are adhered to .. no matter what the complexities of the society in question. So, HOW are they mere 'inventions' ... and how, therefore, considering the above, can they qualify as less than absolutes ? And, yes. Religion insists upon their adherence (unless you're intent upon following a devious aspect of Islam, anyway ..)

Those are not moral absolutes (it is only the framework which is absolute).

For example if you state that stealing is absolutely immoral, then stealing a gun from a man who is about to use the gun to commit murder is immoral. Unless you're a Kant-esque deontologist the problem with that thinking is obvious.

[Drummond]

Those are not moral absolutes (it is only the framework which is absolute).

For example if you state that stealing is absolutely immoral, then stealing a gun from a man who is about to use the gun to commit murder is immoral. Unless you're a Kant-esque deontologist the problem with that thinking is obvious.

H'm. I see what you're driving at, and maybe you have a good point. It's hard to contest, I have to say that.

But this doesn't argue against absolutes as such, maybe only the precise choice of them as to how viable they are as absolutes. You could say that murder, or the attempt at murder, constitutes a greater absolute, therefore, more deserving as one.

[Noir]

H'm. I see what you're driving at, and maybe you have a good point. It's hard to contest, I have to say that.

But this doesn't argue against absolutes as such, maybe only the precise choice of them as to how viable they are as absolutes. You could say that murder, or the attempt at murder, constitutes a greater absolute, therefore, more deserving as one.

Exactly, this is termed consequentialism (the antithesis of deontology) i.e. 'acting for the greater good'. Religious morality tends towards deontology, rather than consequentialism, which tends to lead to some uncomfortable truths.

Now to roll this back to the original topic - I would argue that science can give us a basis for morality based on the wellbeing of conscious creatures, which can be applied, enlightened, and revised in a consequential manner. Religion, which is instead derived from holy text, revealed wisdom etc, has no such room for growth.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I see your skills in selective interpretation haven't diminished. All I'm suggesting is that humans do not have instincts as animals do and I haven't seen anything that would have me change what was discussed in my sociology class ages ago. It takes a horse an hour to learn to walk; humans a year. Baby monkeys can recognize where a ball goes after it's taken away; babies do not have that ability as early. Animals need to be able to survive more quickly than human babies; an infant is utterly helpless at birth. If you think those examples means that we are less bright then I'm not sure where to go from here.

??

You are the one suggesting that we are not as bright, instinct wise, as lower animals.

I see your skills in selective interpretation haven't diminished.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Seriously ??

Well ... not telling lies, is one. Not stealing is another.

One could have argued - if one was an atheist - that these are just man-made inventions, having no substance to them beyond the fact of their invention. Yet, no society can viably exist, no human existence can have decent worth, unless these are adhered to .. no matter what the complexities of the society in question.

So, HOW are they mere 'inventions' ... and how, therefore, considering the above, can they qualify as less than absolutes ?

And, yes. Religion insists upon their adherence (unless you're intent upon following a devious aspect of Islam, anyway ..)

Seems that God does not agree with you and neither do I.

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7

To me, God’s worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways.


Tell us. If you knew someone was going to harm someone with a bomb, and you had only the one chance to steal it, would you?

So much for absolute or objective morality.


Regards

DL

[fj1200]

You are the one suggesting that we are not as bright, instinct wise, as lower animals.

I see your skills in selective interpretation haven't diminished.

That was non-responsive; Instincts are not intelligence. That we develop learned behavior over acting merely on instinct is to our advantage.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That was non-responsive; Instincts are not intelligence. That we develop learned behavior over acting merely on instinct is to our advantage.

That was not at issue but, such as?

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

That was not at issue but, such as?

Ability to learn. Ability to recognize patterns. etc.

[Abbey Marie]

Seems that God does not agree with you and neither do I.

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
1Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.
2 Chron 18:22

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.
Jer 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jer 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.
Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
Thessalonians 2:11

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. - Jeremiah 20:7

To me, God’s worse lie was to Adam and Eve. He told them they could eat of the tree of life and then reneged and in a real sense murdered them by denying them a remedy.

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways.


Tell us. If you knew someone was going to harm someone with a bomb, and you had only the one chance to steal it, would you?

So much for absolute or objective morality.


Regards

DL


I've never seen anyone spend so much time learning about a book they think is just filled wtih nonsense.

Perhaps I will start a treatise on Green Eggs and Ham.
:laugh2:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Ability to learn. Ability to recognize patterns. etc.

We and chimps do those quite well but you might note that as far as thinking out of the box, chimps are better at it than humans as we are too fixated on the patterns we are taught.

http://www.snotr.com/video/5210/Chimps_Vs_Children

You spoke of our slow progress as compared to other animals as if that should reduce our need of intelligence and instincts.


I would thin that the longer and slower we ae to mature, the more and stronger the instincts we should need to get us to maturity.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I've never seen anyone spend so much time learning about a book they think is just filled wtih nonsense.

Perhaps I will start a treatise on Green Eggs and Ham.
:laugh2:

:lame2:

The question is why I would know your book better than you do and why you have such poor knowledge of your God.

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

We and chimps do those quite well but you might note that as far as thinking out of the box, chimps are better at it than humans as we are too fixated on the patterns we are taught.

http://www.snotr.com/video/5210/Chimps_Vs_Children

You spoke of our slow progress as compared to other animals as if that should reduce our need of intelligence and instincts.

I would thin that the longer and slower we ae to mature, the more and stronger the instincts we should need to get us to maturity.

Do you honestly think humans survive because of instinct? Humans have the longest adolescence of any animal, we would all be dead if we were to survive on our supposed instincts. We survive because we have parents who teach us and protect us.

BTW, does that video completely go against the point you were trying to make like the last video?

[Abbey Marie]

:lame2:

The question is why I would know your book better than you do and why you have such poor knowledge of your God.

Regards
DL


You don't get to frame the question just because you want to.

Regards,
A

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Do you honestly think humans survive because of instinct? Humans have the longest adolescence of any animal, we would all be dead if we were to survive on our supposed instincts. We survive because we have parents who teach us and protect us.

BTW, does that video completely go against the point you were trying to make like the last video?

Both made my case.

We both look at the same information but you see black where I see white.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

You don't get to frame the question just because you want to.

Regards,
A

I can frame whatever I like, and you can focus on that to deflect, but that does not explain your lack of knowledge of your own God.

Regards
DL

[fj1200]

Both made my case.

No, but believe what you like. It's what you do. :)

[Abbey Marie]

I can frame whatever I like, and you can focus on that to deflect, but that does not explain your lack of knowledge of your own God.

Regards
DL

You can frame what you like, but we can all see that you are non-responsive to my post.


But please, oh please, explain in detail what YOU know about MY knowledge of "my" God.

I sit almost breathless with anticipation...

[Gunny]

You can frame what you like, but we can all see that you are non-responsive to my post.


But please, oh please, explain in detail what YOU know about MY knowledge of "my" God.

I sit almost breathless with anticipation...

I just bet. :laugh::laugh::laugh: