Knowing what is right and wrong

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

But knowing that I can do that then simply ask for repentance and be forgiven gives me a clean conscious...

Kind of a "Get out of morals free" card?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

But knowing that I can do that then simply ask for repentance and be forgiven gives me a clean conscious...

Kind of a "Get out of morals free" card?

It's in the bible...therefore it is true.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

But knowing that I can do that then simply ask for repentance and be forgiven gives me a clean conscious...

thats what blows my mind. God will allow you to go kill, rape children, lie cheat etc and you still get in heaven as long as you ask for forgivness (on your death bed or the electric chair)! but a man who lives his life right. One that gives to charities, gives everything to help others, who does not lie cheat or steal etc. won't get into heaven if he does not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ironwing

I think you are confusing absolute morality and objective morality. Morals/ethics are always absolute or they wouldn't be morals/ethics. Relative morality or relative ethics are an oxymoron. Something is wrong or it isn't, in the eys of the indivivual.

This isn't true. I can acknowledge that it is wrong to (but not necessarily for) an orthodox jew to eat pork, for example, but that it isn't wrong to or for me. It might be wrong to me and for me to smoke tobacco, but I do not necessarily have to believe that it is wrong to or for other people to do the same.

The prepositions "to" and "for" create an nearly impossibly subtle distinction which is of critical importance when evaluating relative moral statements. I've used them above in a way that I hope illustrates their distinction.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: ggnl
Yes, you have to fear eternal damnnation in order to not kill/steal/etc...

:roll:

But knowing that I can do that then simply ask for repentance and be forgiven gives me a clean conscious...

thats what blows my mind. God will allow you to go kill, rape children, lie cheat etc and you still get in heaven as long as you ask for forgivness (on your death bed or the electric chair)! but a man who lives his life right. One that gives to charities, gives everything to help others, who does not lie cheat or steal etc. won't get into heaven if he does not.

Yes, heathens are not allowed, only those who accept the Sun as their savior and are repentant....

 

[Jeff7]

Nope. I go out raping and pillaging every single night.

In fact, I think I'm going to go kill 5 people right now, just to celebrate the posting of this thread.



:roll:



Religion will allow killing under a variety of circumstances; some even encourage it. Sometimes it's for sacrifices, sometimes it's to "cleanse" impure people from the planet, sometimes it's done during war, and sometimes it's done just because someone else is of a different religion. Religion has had no problem with killing people, oftentimes in rather cruel methods.

Originally posted by: Crono
....
In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

Ah, right. Fortunately, everyone knows exactly what God wants. That's why everyone agrees on what God tells them to do.
And once again:
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is true.
Why? Because the Bible says so.
This is not circular logic.

Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard. The conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all. In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong. In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin. People often feel pain in the wrong place or when they shouldn't, or don't feel pain at all when they should. That is why leprosy is such a potent image in the Bible: it is a symbol for sin. Leprosy (Hansen's disease) doesn't destroy the flesh itself, but attacks the nerves. The disfigurement that comes from leprosy is the result of a person damaging himself because he is unable to feel. Sin acts in the same way.

Didn't we eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and thus learned of right and wrong? Wasn't that the whole reason we were kicked out of Eden?

Also of interest: Without knowledge of right and wrong, how would we have known that disobeying God was a bad thing? How would we have known that lying about it was a bad thing? Hell, the 10 Commandments didn't even exist at that time.


Oh wait, that's in the Old Testament, and that stuff doesn't count anymore. Otherwise slavery and stoning to death would be perfectly acceptable. Or are we still cleared to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are valid?



And of course, we all know that the Christian Bible is the one true source of all relevant information. That's why it's done so well, and why everyone on the planet is a Christian. Hah.
Even Christians can't agree on what to believe. Lutherans, Protestants, Catholics, Baptists.....who else? Yeah, everyone knows exactly what God wants. But don't worry, now that the Roman gods, Ancient Egyptian gods, Aztec gods, and various Native American Spirits are all gone, I'm sure this Christianity thing is definitely where it's at.:laugh:

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ironwing

I think you are confusing absolute morality and objective morality. Morals/ethics are always absolute or they wouldn't be morals/ethics. Relative morality or relative ethics are an oxymoron. Something is wrong or it isn't, in the eys of the indivivual.

This isn't true. I can acknowledge that it is wrong to (but not necessarily for) an orthodox jew to eat pork, for example, but that it isn't wrong to or for me. It might be wrong to me and for me to smoke tobacco, but I do not necessarily have to believe that it is wrong to or for other people to do the same.

The prepositions "to" and "for" create an nearly impossibly subtle distinction which is of critical importance when evaluating relative moral statements. I've used them above in a way that I hope illustrates their distinction.

Again, that comes down to there being no objective morals. For example I think that hunting and killing animals for pure sport (no eating, vermin removal, or any other justification, just the plain fun of killing something) is immoral whether I do it or anyone else does it. I also understand that there are folks who like to sport hunt and see no moral issue at all. To them, it is simply not immoral, period. I, knowing that they beleive this activity to be perfectly moral, still hold them to be immoral. Conversely, they likely think I'm a retard. It isn't an issue of moral relativity but of different, subjective moral codes.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

That's fine. Who said religion had to be developed as a means to get people to behave? Perhaps religion was developed as a means of obtaining power & controlling people? Honor your mother and father, do everything they tell you to do, never talk back or... or.. or you'll get stoned to death by all the people in the village. Doesn't sound like that's about morals, sounds more like it's about control.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: ironwing

I think you are confusing absolute morality and objective morality. Morals/ethics are always absolute or they wouldn't be morals/ethics. Relative morality or relative ethics are an oxymoron. Something is wrong or it isn't, in the eys of the indivivual.

This isn't true. I can acknowledge that it is wrong to (but not necessarily for) an orthodox jew to eat pork, for example, but that it isn't wrong to or for me. It might be wrong to me and for me to smoke tobacco, but I do not necessarily have to believe that it is wrong to or for other people to do the same.

The prepositions "to" and "for" create an nearly impossibly subtle distinction which is of critical importance when evaluating relative moral statements. I've used them above in a way that I hope illustrates their distinction.

Again, that comes down to there being no objective morals. For example I think that hunting and killing animals for pure sport (no eating, vermin removal, or any other justification, just the plain fun of killing something) is immoral whether I do it or anyone else does it. I also understand that there are folks who like to sport hunt and see no moral issue at all. To them, it is simply not immoral, period. I, knowing that they beleive this activity to be perfectly moral, still hold them to be immoral. Conversely, they likely think I'm a retard. It isn't an issue of moral relativity but of different, subjective moral codes.

I do not disagree that morals are subjective, and I understand the consequences of subjective morality thoroughly. I took issue with your claim that all morals are absolute. In fact, morals can be absolute or relative, depending on their construction.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

That's fine. Who said religion had to be developed as a means to get people to behave? Perhaps religion was developed as a means of obtaining power & controlling people? Honor your mother and father, do everything they tell you to do, never talk back or... or.. or you'll get stoned to death by all the people in the village. Doesn't sound like that's about morals, sounds more like it's about control.

In all likelihood, religion began as means of explaining and understanding natural phenomena, and was appropriated as a vehicle for the prescription of moral behavior.

 

[soulcougher73]

To me, morals are just part of being human. It just makes sense to not steal/kill etc. Dont need religion to tell you that. If anything religions stole that from man as a way to give them more power over man.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: LS8

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

or, religious teachings were just formal institutionalized versions of basic human morals that existed long before

The development of religion as a means to get people to behave would not support that theory.

That's fine. Who said religion had to be developed as a means to get people to behave? Perhaps religion was developed as a means of obtaining power & controlling people? Honor your mother and father, do everything they tell you to do, never talk back or... or.. or you'll get stoned to death by all the people in the village. Doesn't sound like that's about morals, sounds more like it's about control.

In all likelihood, religion began as means of explaining and understanding natural phenomena, and was appropriated as a vehicle for the prescription of moral behavior.

That's where we have a bit of disgreement. I'll also agree that it may have begun as a means of explaining and understanding natural phenomena; i.e. if you couldn't explain it, it was some sort of magic. Most religions are trying desperately to cling to that aspect. i.e. intelligent design.

However, where we disagree is that I would assert that it was appropriated as a vehicle for control first. It used the moral behavior argument more to maintain itself. i.e. the premise of this thread - you need religion to have moral behavior. Never mind that you can probably find different indigenous cultures that don't necessarily prescribe to a religion, but could arguably be considered to have moral values.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

That is not needless to say. That only follows if there is a god like being that actually cares, and has morals himself. Very doubtful I would say.
More likely religion originated as a way to codify moral/ethical teachings.
Think of it like telling a child he better stay in bed or the boogyman will eat him.
The boogyman is not the reason for the story, the moral (stay in bed) is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

However, where we disagree is that I would assert that it was appropriated as a vehicle for control first. It used the moral behavior argument more to maintain itself. i.e. the premise of this thread - you need religion to have moral behavior. Never mind that you can probably find different indigenous cultures that don't necessarily prescribe to a religion, but could arguably be considered to have moral values.

I think we might actually be in agreement. Where you say "control," I say "prescribe moral behavior," and I understand the terms synonymously. Perhaps there is more under your umbrella of "control" than simply prescribing moral behavior, and I would enjoy your ideas about that. My earlier claims were hardly more than educated conjecture in the first place.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: LS8
It's not that simple. Human kind has been debating this for thousands of years.

Needless to say, almost all rules/laws of man originated in some religious teaching.

That is not needless to say. That only follows if there is a god like being that actually cares, and has morals himself. Very doubtful I would say.
More likely religion originated as a way to codify moral/ethical teachings.
Think of it like telling a child he better stay in bed or the boogyman will eat him.
The boogyman is not the reason for the story, the moral (stay in bed) is.

A few years ago, I had a rather weird debate with a campus preacher about this. My position was that the god of his religion was utterly immoral, a real bastard. His response was stunning: "Morals are for man, God doesn't have to abide by the moral code he has set for man."

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: ggnl

Originally posted by: Crono

Your question points to the matter of absolute morality versus relative morality. The problem with relative morality is that it is no morality at all. When you do what is right in your eyes, and I do what is right in my eyes, we are bound to disagree.What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

Morality is law that is above everything else, law that is supposed to guide human thought and behavior. Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral. The question then is who is the law giver? Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

In essence, the reason for discord in this world is because mankind refuses to acknowledge the law and the lawgiver, God, and instead tries to live by his own standard ("what is right in his own eyes", to borrow biblical language). I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard. The conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all. In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong. In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin.

That is complete and utter bullshit. Fear of divine retribution does not drive our moral compass. I can point to any number of atrocities committed in the name of your god to prove that.

More importantly I can point to many biblical morals that are no longer held, and many others that are not in the bible that are nearly universally held.
There is also a large problem with his absolute morality versus relative morality (which it has already been pointed out what he really means is subjective vs objective morality) which is that is requires a single supreme source for all morality that is universally accepted, which is patently not true.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ironwing


A few years ago, I had a rather weird debate with a campus preacher about this. My position was that the god of his religion was utterly immoral, a real bastard. His response was stunning: "Morals are for man, God doesn't have to abide by the moral code he has set for man."

Richard Nixon is god???

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing


A few years ago, I had a rather weird debate with a campus preacher about this. My position was that the god of his religion was utterly immoral, a real bastard. His response was stunning: "Morals are for man, God doesn't have to abide by the moral code he has set for man."

Richard Nixon is god???

That would explain his dislike for Jews.

 

[manowar821]

Religion is make believe, treating people nicely is not. I don't understand the fucking issue.

 

[SMOGZINN]

A more interesting question is can there be morals with religion?
Is it really moral to do the right thing when you have a guard watching you all the time?

 

[theflyingpig]

Religion is for fools who wish to believe in fairy tales. Everyone knows this.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
A more interesting question is can there be morals with religion?
Is it really moral to do the right thing when you have a guard watching you all the time?

Also, what to do when your own morals conflict with the stated morals of your chosen religion.

 

[Leafy]

Is it good because God commands it or does God command it because it's good?

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: polarmystery
Just one simple question. Can somebody have morals and -not- be religious? I was thinking about this last night and I thought that morals are founded from religious teachings but I know people who are not religious who don't kill/steal/etc. (they abide by the laws) and know people who are religious and have killed/stole/etc. Are religions based on good morals or teachings or a combination of both? Any ideas? I'm kind of confused.

people can know right from wrong and not be religious. society teaches us. also, even though it's biblical/religious in origin, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a basic human life lesson.

That quote may be, but it was around way before Jesus. Besides, that isn't correct, because some people don't want to be treated the way you want to be treated. It was greek first. See: "Ethic of reciprocity".

 

[Leafy]

Originally posted by: Crono
What I do and what you do will inevitably be in disagreement and there will be anarchy and destruction.

Well that's not a slippery slope fallacy or anything.

Originally posted by: Crono
Unless there is a law giver, and respect of the law giver and the law, a person or society cannot be moral.

Moral according to who? The law giver, or you? Show me evidence that it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for objective morality to exist. The problem is not systems of objective morality don't exist, but rather the motivation to follow them. Read a fucking ethics book.

Originally posted by: Crono
Unless the law comes from someone/something greater than a man (assuming you accept the belief that all human beings are equal in value), no one will agree nor respect the law.

I disagree. Common law such as laws given by the legislature are FROM men, and the laws are for the most part respected.

Originally posted by: Crono
I am a Christian and hold the Bible to be absolute truth, nothing else. It's not true because I believe it, but I believe it because it is true.

How do you know it's true? Just saying that it is doesn't make it so.

Originally posted by: Crono
Man is not inherently able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Human beings are corrupt in this regard.

Show me.

Originally posted by: CronoThe conscience is an alarm of sorts within the human mind that informs a person when he does something wrong, but it is linked to the standard that the person holds to. If the standard is not right, the conscience wrongly alerts the person or doesn't alert the person at all.

Your argument: If people don't correctly learn what is right and wrong, then they won't do right and will do wrong. Duh.

Originally posted by: Crono
In the physical world, pain performs the same function: letting the person know something is wrong.

Needles hurt. Are vaccinations thus wrong?

Originally posted by: Crono
In both the spiritual and physical world, the mechanisms are corrupted because of original sin. People often feel pain in the wrong place or when they shouldn't, or don't feel pain at all when they should. That is why leprosy is such a potent image in the Bible: it is a symbol for sin. Leprosy (Hansen's disease) doesn't destroy the flesh itself, but attacks the nerves. The disfigurement that comes from leprosy is the result of a person damaging himself because he is unable to feel. Sin acts in the same way.

Euthyphro dilemma.

I believe that sin is an incredibly immoral method of judging people. First of all, the concept that all sins are equal in god's eyes is ridiculous - work on the sabbath? You might as well have killed someone.

The very symbol of justice is a scale - the punishment is meant to fit the crime and be equal in severity and damage. There is no crime that you can do that is infinite in punishment, therefore any punishment that is infinite cannot be moral or just.