Help with on morality.

[Max]

I'm having a discussion on morality, it's basically coming down to someone trying to say that morals come from christianity and religion. My stance is that morals can come from society, and you don't need religion to know right from wrong, basically. I also pointed out other religions that aren't christian that have good moral codes. Anyway, this post was directed at me I guess, and I'd like a little help with it. =)

Just an important fact to point out that originally all the what eventually became "Christian" monks, and "Buddhist" monks, and Taoist followesr originally all studied together. To aim anger at Christians for "not thinking for themselves" is very wrong in many tenses.
(common, don't practically argue with the philosophy/religion minor, dudes!!)
1) Let's not bring government into these, for any ANYTHING that relates to ANY founding of ANY government stems from some religious founding. Period. (period x's 2? o-O)
2)Taoism is not a religion, but a philosophy and I will not allow for it to be compared to the other major religions of the world.
3)There are such things as Christian Hindus and Christian Buddhist. SO, that point is flawed.
4)How does "common sense" BECOME "common""sense"?
5)Just because a person is atheist, that does not quantify them as having more judgement.
6)ALL major religions our world do not wish to dronitize (hehe, new word!!) people, but rather search for what they feel and know is right for them.

Ask yourself, WHERE did your parents get their "morals" or "values", and where did the people and instances in your life that effect your point of view.

Understand, I am not stating that Christianity is the "one true religion", I am saying that religion as a whole is necessary and the at the very core of what makes us human.

[Max]

Can someone fix my thread title please? It should be Help with posting on morality.

[Haruko]

"...moral principles are not the result of any revelation but originate from the very structure of man's reason."
-- The New Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 26, 15th edition

[Faram]

Turn it on the head.

How can you be moral and at the same time be a part of an instutiotion that have killed millijons in wars.

That kills millions now, fighting anything that resembles safe sex.

That is intolerant and dogmatic.

And so on.

I have freqevently asked how can you support this and still claim to have morals.

Then you get because the bible says and Jesus said and so on, just have some of the more hateful remarks of Jesus ready.

Matthew:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (10:34-36)
I came not to send peace, but a sword. ... A man's foes shall be they of his own household."
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Expose the hateful biggots for what they are!

[GeneralTacticus]

You might also want to point out that if you accept a set of rules "because the Bible says so", without analysing them on their own merits, then you're basically declaring that morality is arbitary; it's whatever God says it is. I doubt the person you're talking to considers their morality to be arbitary. And if you do analyse them and decide to accept them (or not) on their merits, then congratulations - you obviously have a source of morality from somewhere other than religion, otherwise you wouldn't have any standards to judge the suggested rules by.

[Frank Hipper]

I'm having a discussion on morality, it's basically coming down to someone trying to say that morals come from christianity and religion. My stance is that morals can come from society, and you don't need religion to know right from wrong, basically. I also pointed out other religions that aren't christian that have good moral codes. Anyway, this post was directed at me I guess, and I'd like a little help with it. =)

You honestly can't handle this turd?

Just an important fact to point out that originally all the what eventually became "Christian" monks, and "Buddhist" monks, and Taoist followesr originally all studied together. To aim anger at Christians for "not thinking for themselves" is very wrong in many tenses.
(common, don't practically argue with the philosophy/religion minor, dudes!!)

Appeal to own authority, and considering what you've written below, an empty boast.

1) Let's not bring government into these, for any ANYTHING that relates to ANY founding of ANY government stems from some religious founding. Period. (period x's 2? o-O)

Does "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" ring a bell?
Where's the religious basis for The Untied States government?
Where's the religious basis for the Soviet Union?
The People's Republic of China?
The French First Republic?

2)Taoism is not a religion, but a philosophy and I will not allow for it to be compared to the other major religions of the world.

An utterly outrageous and bald-faced lie.

3)There are such things as Christian Hindus and Christian Buddhist. SO, that point is flawed.

Your knowledge of Comparative Religion is tragically flawed. Aquaint yourself with the Nicean Creed and say that there's such a thing as Christian Hindu...absolutely ridiculous.

4)How does "common sense" BECOME "common""sense"?

In the vernacular, "common sense" means sound judgement.

5)Just because a person is atheist, that does not quantify them as having more judgement.

Just because a person is religious, that does not quantify them as having moral judgement.

6)ALL major religions our world do not wish to dronitize (hehe, new word!!) people, but rather search for what they feel and know is right for them.

An absolutely singular view with zero basis in fact. Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam all rely on a dogmatic approach for instruction of their followers, and many (if not most) sects amongst those VEHEMENTLY oppose people attempting to "search for what they feel and know is right for them".

Ask yourself, WHERE did your parents get their "morals" or "values", and where did the people and instances in your life that effect your point of view.

Their own judgement, primarily. That in spite of being raised in religious households, and professing faith.

Understand, I am not stating that Christianity is the "one true religion", I am saying that religion as a whole is necessary and the at the very core of what makes us human.

Why should any person take you, a person who has displayed gross ignorance of a subject they claim to be knowledgeable in, at your mere word?

[Turin]

I'm only going to do a couple of these because they seem so absurd:

Just an important fact to point out that originally all the what eventually became "Christian" monks, and "Buddhist" monks, and Taoist followesr originally all studied together. To aim anger at Christians for "not thinking for themselves" is very wrong in many tenses.

WTF? So this idiot is claiming that Chrisitian monks were studying with Taoist monks, when Taoism predates Christianity by centuries? Ask him for fucking evidence of this crap.

1) Let's not bring government into these, for any ANYTHING that relates to ANY founding of ANY government stems from some religious founding. Period. (period x's 2? o-O)

Ooo... he said "Period." Well I guess it must be true. Horseshit, tell him he has to actually demonstrate this before coming up with such a wide-reaching claim.

2)Taoism is not a religion, but a philosophy and I will not allow for it to be compared to the other major religions of the world.

Assuming for the moment that this is true, wouldn't that be the whole fucking point: you don't need religion to make a moral code. This moron is making your arguments for you.

[Max]

I appreciate the help, my knowledge of different religions combined with morality is limited, and combining that with the 6 different 'facts' she posted, I felt a little overwhelmed. It's nice to know there are people here that will help out =)

[Mobiboros]

Just an important fact to point out that originally all the what eventually became "Christian" monks, and "Buddhist" monks, and Taoist followesr originally all studied together. To aim anger at Christians for "not thinking for themselves" is very wrong in many tenses.

I can buy that maybe some early Christians studied with Buddhist/Hindu clergy which would explain why the story of Christ is really just the stolen story of Krishna. But that still means that the Christians did steal the ideas.

1) Let's not bring government into these, for any ANYTHING that relates to ANY founding of ANY government stems from some religious founding. Period.

There's too many "Any"'s in this sentence. That aside this is just not true. As someone else noted, there are many examples of government not founded on religion.

2)Taoism is not a religion, but a philosophy and I will not allow for it to be compared to the other major religions of the world.

I'd argue that he's splitting hairs on the religion/philosophy thing, but otherwise saying is that there are examples of morality not based on religion.

3)There are such things as Christian Hindus and Christian Buddhist. SO, that point is flawed.

I've never met a Christian Hindu. How does one rationalize "We have many gods and godesses who've been incarnated on earth many times and that predate Christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years." with "We have one god and one god only there are no others"? As for Christian Buddhist, sure. I've met Jewish Buddhists and Hindu Buddhists and many others. Buddhism is a philosophical slant on looking at the world. It can be aligned with other religions but makes no real determination on any gods.

4)How does "common sense" BECOME "common""sense"?

The answer, and it may sound silly, is it's shared commonly. To do this you'd need a society and not necessarily a religion. However, who cares? "Common Sense", more often than not lately, seem to be equated with "Anti-science, anti-rationality, pro-dogma" points of view. Why is this to be held up and praised?

5)Just because a person is atheist, that does not quantify them as having more judgement.

No, it doesn't. It does, however, mean the person needs to find a morality without religous basis though. Often Secular Humanism or the like.

6)ALL major religions our world do not wish to dronitize (hehe, new word!!) people, but rather search for what they feel and know is right for them.

I can't even respond here as I don't know what the word "Dronitize" means. It baffled google search.

Ask yourself, WHERE did your parents get their "morals" or "values", and where did the people and instances in your life that effect your point of view.

I've often argued with my parents that they are immoral because they do good things out of either a) a desire to be rewarded, or b) a fear of being punished, rather than any true desire to help their fellow man.

Understand, I am not stating that Christianity is the "one true religion", I am saying that religion as a whole is necessary and the at the very core of what makes us human.

Yes, you are saying that but you're not backing it up with anything. It's not intrinsic to being human as there are many humans with no religion and those with religion can't agree on what is 'right'.

[Plekhanov]

You could ask him why if as he states morality comes from religion how come I, an atheist raised in the Church of the Nazarene and then later the Methodists, took the moral decision not to eat meat 10 years ago. A decision I’ve held fast to since then despite the inconvenience it causes & a real fondness for seafood.

My point here isn’t the morality or not of eating meat but the simple fact that I made a moral decision which has no foundation in the faith which every attempt was made to indoctrinate me into.

[Alyeska]

Remind them that morality existed without religion. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, just its own version.

[SirNitram]

Fuck, even Christianity never says Christianity is the source of morality. Has no one here read the book? It comes from the tree of knowledge according to their mythology. So you inherit the knowledge of morality along with original sin.

Is it BS? Sure. But it's the answer his religion gives.

[Max]

Ok.. This either just went WAY over my head, or my eyes hurt from the paragraphs structure. Would anyone like to take a crack at it?

I could continue this, but I rather not just because I have a power point to make. But, the US Constitution WAS passed off of Christian ideals. If you go to India, you'll see the maybe more acutely put "hindu christians"; Jesus gets but under the concept of Krishna and Brahman/Brahma/Brahmin. Buddhism and Christianity can work very fundamentally well together, depends how you will chose to view the teachings of your "true nature" and the "self". To say that Taoism is not a religion BUT a philosophy is not making an argument for you, for any "morals" or "values" that are inserted into the Taoist views are that a Buddhist or pretty much any major religion. I would hold off on saying any spiritual message could/is dogmatic. Something is only dogmatic because of a limited view (dualistic view in Buddhism). You made no point in respondse to my "5" statement. I guess what I was trying to say is that you can't take one quote from the encyclopedia to quantify an on-going debate. The basis to any religious starting is if there is a belief in what humanity can perform on its own and why it can/does perform/act in a certain manor.

Like I stated before, I was not arguing that any specific religion is the path to righteousness but rather that to progress out civilization universal morals have to be accepted if we want to work on a truely unified world scale. Clearly, there have been theories such as Kolhberg's that we've tried to unify with the school systems. If you look at any part of history it has been when the morals or values of a society have been shared with every member. Just to point out, "look at the People's Republic of China...the basis of the Soviet Union" you mean Communism??! Yes, noble concept. Notice how it falls apart and becomes corrupt?
Just to point out that every major religion does want you to come to believe, without just following a crowd. When you are just following you cannot truely believe or hold anything as a principle in your soul. A hope in Buddhism this is painfully obvious, but the search to understand one's "true nature", the "big mind". But, the religion that I feel is being most targeted is Christianity. Many people the view that St. Augustine expressed in his Confessions and multitude of other texts; this was that a human by the own will cannot come to believe in God, for true comprehension of God is impossible, and thus only through the person's own opening of the their heart and soul can the Holy Spirit enter into them and give them a glimpse of the love of God.

In every culture, past and present, has had some religious/moral ideal grounding. This is evidence alone to me that religion is necessary and when that religion/moral ideal is taken away the society falls apart. If you've been listening to the recent debates about "Intelligent design", most of the cardinals/pastors/monks/etc. do not want science and religion to collide. They see it as a blasphemous, to both. As do I.

What I fail to see is how you are actually arguing with that point? But, I am tired already from working. Please help me to understand, I guess.

[Frank Hipper]

Ok.. This either just went WAY over my head, or my eyes hurt from the paragraphs structure. Would anyone like to take a crack at it?

Sure. This person's a moron.

I could continue this, but I rather not just because I have a power point to make. But, the US Constitution WAS passed off of Christian ideals.

Repeating a point does not make it true, what Christian ideals are represented in the US Constitution?

If you go to India, you'll see the maybe more acutely put "hindu christians"; Jesus gets but under the concept of Krishna and Brahman/Brahma/Brahmin.

Which does not accord with Christianity.

Buddhism and Christianity can work very fundamentally well together, depends how you will chose to view the teachings of your "true nature" and the "self".

Buddhism may deal with "true nature", but applying that Buddhist point of view is gross apostasy to a Christian. In other words, Buddhism may be accepting of certain vague traits of Christianity (every Buddhist I've ever spoken to views Christianity as a flawed and bizarre belief system, BTW)., but Christianity is exclusive by definition.

To say that Taoism is not a religion BUT a philosophy is not making an argument for you, for any "morals" or "values" that are inserted into the Taoist views are that a Buddhist or pretty much any major religion.

Taoist morality is based in Confucianism, not Buddhism. And the point I made was that your claim that Taoism is a philosophy and not a religion is a lie.

I would hold off on saying any spiritual message could/is dogmatic. Something is only dogmatic because of a limited view (dualistic view in Buddhism).

Dogmas are the essential core of several of the most influential religions on the face of the planet, I don't think you understand the word.

You made no point in respondse to my "5" statement.

mplsjocc, did you not take this person to task with "Just because a person is religious, that does not quantify them as having moral judgement."?
It's all the point that need be made there.

I guess what I was trying to say is that you can't take one quote from the encyclopedia to quantify an on-going debate. The basis to any religious starting is if there is a belief in what humanity can perform on its own and why it can/does perform/act in a certain manor.

What a ridiculous misrepresentation of this, I've addressed your points one by one, to characterise that as taking a definition from an encyclopedia is not true.

Like I stated before, I was not arguing that any specific religion is the path to righteousness but rather that to progress out civilization universal morals have to be accepted if we want to work on a truely unified world scale.

You're replacing your own ideals with those of the world's religions; to "work on a truely (sic.) unified world scale" takes a great deal of tortured rationalisation to be applied to so many contradictory and exclsive beliefs. The Catholic who sees the Church as the source of all morality is not going to accept the devout Hindu as a moral equal, to ignore that is to willfully keep your head in the clouds.

Clearly, there have been theories such as Kolhberg's that we've tried to unify with the school systems. If you look at any part of history it has been when the morals or values of a society have been shared with every member.

When I look at history at get nauseated at the volumes of blood that have been spilt by those professing superior morality. What's your point?

Just to point out, "look at the People's Republic of China...the basis of the Soviet Union" you mean Communism??! Yes, noble concept. Notice how it falls apart and becomes corrupt?

Mentioning the Soviet Union and China wer counter your ridiculously false claim that "Let's not bring government into these, for any ANYTHING that relates to ANY founding of ANY government stems from some religious founding. Period."

Just to point out that every major religion does want you to come to believe, without just following a crowd. When you are just following you cannot truely believe or hold anything as a principle in your soul.

Two things; So what?
And; Proof?

But, the religion that I feel is being most targeted is Christianity. Many people the view that St. Augustine expressed in his Confessions and multitude of other texts; this was that a human by the own will cannot come to believe in God, for true comprehension of God is impossible, and thus only through the person's own opening of the their heart and soul can the Holy Spirit enter into them and give them a glimpse of the love of God.

Abandon reason and believe because you're told to...what possible appeal is there in that?

In every culture, past and present, has had some religious/moral ideal grounding. This is evidence alone to me that religion is necessary and when that religion/moral ideal is taken away the society falls apart.

The entire point of this is that morality can exist independant of religion. Citing that religion exists everywhere in NO WAY proves it's neccesity.

If you've been listening to the recent debates about "Intelligent design", most of the cardinals/pastors/monks/etc. do not want science and religion to collide. They see it as a blasphemous, to both. As do I.

The concept of "blaspheming" against science is indicative of gross ignorance of it.

ID is a religous/philosophical concept, and totally divorced from science.

[Max]

mplsjocc, did you not take this person to task with "Just because a person is religious, that does not quantify them as having moral judgement."?
It's all the point that need be made there.

I tried! I'm outnumbered! Once I respond to one person, 2 others pounce on the previous post I made... lol

[Frank Hipper]

mplsjocc, did you not take this person to task with "Just because a person is religious, that does not quantify them as having moral judgement."?
It's all the point that need be made there.

I tried! I'm outnumbered! Once I respond to one person, 2 others pounce on the previous post I made... lol

That's a rough spot to be in, my advice is to concentrate on your primary vict...err, opponent, and don't let their philosophy student red herrings be a distraction.

Keep on your point, and STRIKE!

Hit hard, hit first, and keep on hitting.

Show no mercy, never back off the subject at hand.

Keep on the offensive, never place yourself in a postion where you have to defend a point, they're making the claims, force them to validate them or concede.

[The Guid]

What is this site? I might be able to drop in and help out in person. Not that I am exactly the best of SD.net but I could use the workout.

[fgalkin]

The banning of a troll split here

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Setesh]

This is my back up :

>Darth Wong : I see you intend to regale us with the infamous double-standard of bigotry where Christians are not bigots even when they discriminate and declare others deserving of death unless they follow arbitrary rules, while atheists are bigots if they merely say bad things about religion. Either back up your bullshit or back down, troll.

Understand?

Exactly how is logical debate (asking you to meet the burden of proof for your assertion) proof of bigotry?

Because he (like most of his ilk) is suffering from CDOPS. What is CDOPS? you ask. Christian Denial Of Persecution Syndrome, As seen on websites such as waronfaith.com, ect many christians (or frankly most aggressive conversion religeous fundies) view any attempt to stop them from persecuting others for not following their brand of Sky-pixie as persecuting them even or especially if they seek you out to spout off at and you dare get offended. Any atempt to deny them their 'god-givin right' to harrass, annoy or simply make insulting comments at anyone is treated as a bias against them or proof of the 'vast (atheist/satanist/ect) conspiracy against them.

[Setesh]

Damn you Fgalkin you split the post while I was typing (shakes fist)

[AdmiralKanos]

As I said before (elsewhere), if you replace "Christianity" with "Christian Domination" in the average Christian persecution argument, it suddenly makes sense. "There's a war on Christianity" actually means "There's a war on Christian domination of others." And "Christians aren't allowed to practice their beliefs any more" actually means "Christians aren't allowed to dominate others any more."

Look at the furor over companies saying "Happy Holidays". Why should that bother Christians, since they are still perfectly free to say "Merry Christmas" and so many places still use that phrase? Because they want to dominate the Hallmark shelves, the airwaves, and all publically visible areas with "Merry Christmas". It's not enough that the phrase is allowed, it must dominate.

[Darth Raptor]

Fuck, even Christianity never says Christianity is the source of morality. Has no one here read the book? It comes from the tree of knowledge according to their mythology. So you inherit the knowledge of morality along with original sin.

Moses- the brutal murdering terrorist- also gets into an ethics argument with God... and wins.

[Molyneux]

Fuck, even Christianity never says Christianity is the source of morality. Has no one here read the book? It comes from the tree of knowledge according to their mythology. So you inherit the knowledge of morality along with original sin.

Moses- the brutal murdering terrorist- also gets into an ethics argument with God... and wins.

Wait wait wait...how is Moses a brutal murdering terrorist?

[Steel]

Wait wait wait...how is Moses a brutal murdering terrorist?

Didnt he have a part to play in the terrorism of egypt with rains of frogs and the massacre of thousands of babies to "free his people"

[Darth Raptor]

Wait wait wait...how is Moses a brutal murdering terrorist?

As Steel mentioned, God doesn't get all the blame for the plagues of Egypt. I would personally hold the conjurer at least partly responsible. There's also that part where he murders an Egyptian guard. Also, when he came down from Sinai with the Commandments and saw the Hebrews living in "sin" he killed a whole slew of them. That's where he got into an argument with God. Jehova wanted to wipe them all out, but Moses argued on their behalf- successfully- and "only" killed some of them. Nice guy? Yes, compared to God...