cre8tiff Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I hope there's enough room in hell for all those Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Shintos, Atheists. . . It has been proven that Hell is exothermic, due in part to all those inputs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 It has been proven that Hell is exothermic, due in part to all those inputs. I've always liked whatever version of that story I hear. Great stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Seriously? I'll tell you who cares. People who don't want to have someone who's just a man tell them that these are the laws has handed down by the allmighty so follow them all or else. The bible also defines "good and upstanding" in very specific ways that may ore may not actually me accurate and cites a source that can't be confirmed as justification. the Bible often at times has a "worship me or go to hell" feel to it....I don't think that's god... I don't like religious or non-religious labels such as christian or agnostic for example.....I think we've allowed these books to limit us, if anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Actions_which...e_Old_Testament Some good ones from your link..for many, death is the punishment: 1. Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. 2. Cursing your parents (Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9). 3. Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) 4. Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites. (Kill all the men, make the women and children slaves.) 5. Performing any work on the sabbath.(Exodus 20:10) 6. For women, speaking in church.(1 Corinthians 14:34-35) 7. Tattoos.(Leviticus 19:28) 8. Consulting a psychic or spiritualist.(Leviticus 19:31) 9. Planting more then one kind of seed in a field.(Leviticus 19:19) 10. Wearing clothing woven of more then one kind of cloth.(Leviticus 19:19) 11. Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard.(Leviticus 19:27) Sorry, this kool aid ain't for drinkin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 11. Cutting the hair on the sides of your head Thou shalt not wear a mullet? Well, at least god has good fashion sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I've always believed you can teach right from wrong, even in the absence of God. How does one do that? What is the source of moral authority when God is removed from the equation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 How does one do that? What is the source of moral authority when God is removed from the equation? Why does one need to point to some deity in order to teach people what is right? My family did not go to church. Are you implying that my parents were unable to teach me right from wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 How does one do that? What is the source of moral authority when God is removed from the equation? We've had this conversation before but it is in part the obvious need for cooperation (the Golden Rule, perhaps) as a self-preservation mechanism. All stages of society (save anarchy) have some moral compass and all can be traced to a need for order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Why does one need to point to some deity in order to teach people what is right? My family did not go to church. Are you implying that my parents were unable to teach me right from wrong? Not at all - I'm asking how your folks or anyone else teaching right or wrong makes a determination between good and evil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) Not at all - I'm asking how your folks or anyone else teaching right or wrong makes a determination between good and evil. Right and wrong doesn't necessarily parallel good and evil. They are mutually exclusive. Edited February 18, 2009 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Not at all - I'm asking how your folks or anyone else teaching right or wrong makes a determination between good and evil. See below. We've had this conversation before but it is in part the obvious need for cooperation (the Golden Rule, perhaps) as a self-preservation mechanism. All stages of society (save anarchy) have some moral compass and all can be traced to a need for order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 We've had this conversation before but it is in part the obvious need for cooperation (the Golden Rule, perhaps) as a self-preservation mechanism. All stages of society (save anarchy) have some moral compass and all can be traced to a need for order. That's a pretty good explanation, and holds together well in family and smaller social realms in terms of self-preservation and order. How do the same ideals transfer to situations outside our immediate interpersonal and social circles? What guides morality when competition supplants cooperation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Some good ones from your link..for many, death is the punishment: 1. Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. 2. Cursing your parents (Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9). 3. Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) 4. Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites. (Kill all the men, make the women and children slaves.) 5. Performing any work on the sabbath.(Exodus 20:10) 6. For women, speaking in church.(1 Corinthians 14:34-35) 7. Tattoos.(Leviticus 19:28) 8. Consulting a psychic or spiritualist.(Leviticus 19:31) 9. Planting more then one kind of seed in a field.(Leviticus 19:19) 10. Wearing clothing woven of more then one kind of cloth.(Leviticus 19:19) 11. Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard.(Leviticus 19:27) Sorry, this kool aid ain't for drinkin'. I'm guilty of most of those, including the ones for women. Assuming you consider my 12 x 12 garden one field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 That's a pretty good explanation, and holds together well in family and smaller social realms in terms of self-preservation and order. How do the same ideals transfer to situations outside our immediate interpersonal and social circles? What guides morality when competition supplants cooperation? It translates well to larger realms. Think about how traffic works - it's a cooperative effort that works for the greater good because nobody (or at least relatively few) wants to be the victim. It's a self-preservation mechanism that makes most of us observe stop signs, etc. Likewise in the business world, for the most part it isn't wilful criminality that's the current issue (except Madoff and a few others), it's stupidity, shortsightedness and laziness. Normal vendor - client relationships are usually mutually beneficial and therefore add to the overall security of each partner, thus most vendors don't screw their customers over because of the competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Likewise in the business world, for the most part it isn't wilful criminality that's the current issue (except Madoff and a few others), it's stupidity, shortsightedness and laziness. Normal vendor - client relationships are usually mutually beneficial and therefore add to the overall security of each partner, thus most vendors don't screw their customers over because of the competition. I think a lot of the problems we have today were caused by more sinister motives - greed on the part of many, many people from both government, business and citizens. This question of morality is a very interesting one in today's world. I've been asking myself what made so many people make so many bad decision in a relatively short period of time? I think moral relativism played a part, but that is not to say all moral relativists are immoral. One thing is certain, plenty of people compromised their morals to get us into this mess, regardless of where they were formed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I think a lot of the problems we have today were caused by more sinister motives - greed on the part of many, many people from both government, business and citizens. This question of morality is a very interesting one in today's world. I've been asking myself what made so many people make so many bad decision in a relatively short period of time? I think moral relativism played a part, but that is not to say all moral relativists are immoral. One thing is certain, plenty of people compromised their morals to get us into this mess, regardless of where they were formed. I agree. I suspect that the greed was accompanied by a failure to fully understand the consequences that we have seen. Very few imagined their greed (which arguably could be a function of stupidity, shortsightedness and laziness) would cause a seismic event of such magnitude. None of the above precludes my oft-repeated cure of publicly shooting one in ten Wall Street bankers, analysts and other financial cretins in order to properly encourage the others in the future, mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I don't buy that in the slightest. If you want to talk about the role that lack of ethics or lack of morality played in this mess, then that's a legitimate conversation to have. But moral relativism is still morality. This person seems to be suggesting that moral relativism isn't moral at all. It's morality in context, or with a qualifier. Just because it's not an absolute that disregards circumstances, doesn't negate it altogether. To me, this is just more evangelical agenda hogwash. But moral relativism might tell a senator, for example, that cheating on your taxes would be OK, because of all the good you do in another facet. It's relative, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 It translates well to larger realms. Think about how traffic works - it's a cooperative effort that works for the greater good because nobody (or at least relatively few) wants to be the victim. It's a self-preservation mechanism that makes most of us observe stop signs, etc. Likewise in the business world, for the most part it isn't wilful criminality that's the current issue (except Madoff and a few others), it's stupidity, shortsightedness and laziness. Normal vendor - client relationships are usually mutually beneficial and therefore add to the overall security of each partner, thus most vendors don't screw their customers over because of the competition. But coming full-circle to this thread, this idea does not transfer well to religion. Regardless of the greater-good/Golden Rule, the Muslim faith is so polar to the Christian faith that "order", or compromise for the greater good, will likely never be achieved. The US underestimated this concept when they sent troops overseas, hoping to forge democracy in a war-torn land. While the democratic way of life may indeed one day emerge in Iraq, the religion behind it will keep it from ever being what we have come to know here in the states. We will forever be their enemies for not taking Allah as our God....and for that, true global order will never exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I, like you, am on several daily emails of a variety of sorts. One of the ones I gets deals with a variety of Christian / ethics types of things. It seems that today's email (see below) puts a rather fine point on the cause of much of today's economic issues: ................................................. Ravi Zacharias, a renowned Christian apologist, spoke at a conference and recounted an intriguing story. A reporter from the New York Times called to get his perspective on the economic collapse, and specifically on the unethical behavior of many business executives. Ravi agreed to answer his questions if the reporter would answer one for him first. "Why is it that we train our future leaders throughout their school years that truth is relative;" Ravi asked, "that right and wrong depends upon their own personal beliefs, and then when they live and act accordingly, we want to put them in jail?" The reporter was stumped. If we desire to build ethical leaders we need to heed Jesus' words in Matthew 5:19, "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." God's Word is absolute, not relative. Let's train others accordingly. ................................................. Thoughts? I gotta say, I just cringe when I read stuff like this, because it strikes me as so sanctimonious and pharisaic. yes, to believe in a higher power is to believe there are absolute truths. the kind of belief system that would lead someone to the conclusion that every single sentence in this particular collection of books is God's absolute truth, and every sentence in every book not in our collection is not -- well, I'm sorry, but that is a silly belief system that has little to do with the religion of jesus and paul. in fact it is the exact sort of religious outlook jesus was trying to correct and modify with his own ministry. the message of christianity is that God's absolute truth is something that cannot be contained in earten vessels, something that utterly resists worldly codification, something we can only glimpse but through a glass darkly. it is something we cannot attain, but can only hope to approach. not that jesus was preaching some easy, anything goes type morality. quite the contrary. right after matthew 5:19-20 is the section of mathhew's gospel commonly called "the antitheses"....where jesus specifically takes on the attitude that "everything God demands is right here in this book" by taking something the book demands, and placing even harder demands on us. to take one of these antitheses as an example: ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,* what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. obviously, none of us can be perfect as god is perfect, none of us can truly love our enemy -- and that is part of the point -- so that no man can ever claim to be just, no man can ever think he has arrived at God's absolute truth and justified himself by adhering to written statutes, because that is the pathway to pride. rather, he sets before us an example which we can never attain, but can always be mindful of approaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 But moral relativism might tell a senator, for example, that cheating on your taxes would be OK, because of all the good you do in another facet. It's relative, right? I'm no expert, but I wouldn't take that to be a proper argument. It's not that one act is deemed ok due to another act, but that the same act could be moral in one set of circumstances and immoral in another. Like for example, abortion; Would you treat as equally immoral a woman who had her 3rd abortion because she wasn't responsible enough to use birth control, and a celibate nun who had an abortion after she was raped ministering to convicts on death row? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 (edited) But moral relativism might tell a senator, for example, that cheating on your taxes would be OK, because of all the good you do in another facet. It's relative, right? For starters, there's no way you truly feel this way if you are, in fact as you claim to be politically. Also, your example of "moral relativism" is pretty lame and I'm nearly certain that any senator caught cheating on his taxes would not try to cop that plea, nor do I doubt they'd honestly feel that way. Short of accepting martial law, we're going to have to have faith that people can figure out the right path and recognize that might not always be the same path depending on circumstances present. Because of that, we subject ourselves to getting burned but have realized that's the price of freedom. ETA: and then there's what Billay said above which is totally spot on. Edited February 18, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightsOfKnee Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 C'mon Cr8tiff - get on the same page. We're talking about Christianity here, no need to get extremist Muslim on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm no expert, but I wouldn't take that to be a proper argument. It's not that one act is deemed ok due to another act, but that the same act could be moral in one set of circumstances and immoral in another. Like for example, abortion; Would you treat as equally immoral a woman who had her 3rd abortion because she wasn't responsible enough to use birth control, and a celibate nun who had an abortion after she was raped ministering to convicts on death row? OK, I wanted to get the definition straight. For starters, there's no way you truly feel this way if you are, in fact as you claim to be politically. Also, your example of "moral relativism" is pretty lame and I'm nearly certain that any senator caught cheating on his taxes would not try to cop that plea, nor do I doubt they'd honestly feel that way. Short of accepting martial law, we're going to have to have faith that people can figure out the right path and recognize that might not always be the same path depending on circumstances present. Because of that, we subject ourselves to getting burned but have realized that's the price of freedom. ETA: and then there's what Billay said above which is totally spot on. You're right, I don't believe it. I just wanted an opinion. I do generally believe in a right and wrong, but only those based on what I can objectively prove. That's why I'm a big "rights" guy. I believe in God and am a Christian, but I'm not gonna beat you over the head with it nor will I expect you to live in the mold I want to live (a la abortion and gay marriage). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 For starters, there's no way you truly feel this way if you are, in fact as you claim to be politically. Also, your example of "moral relativism" is pretty lame and I'm nearly certain that any senator caught cheating on his taxes would not try to cop that plea, nor do I doubt they'd honestly feel that way. Short of accepting martial law, we're going to have to have faith that people can figure out the right path and recognize that might not always be the same path depending on circumstances present. Because of that, we subject ourselves to getting burned but have realized that's the price of freedom. ETA: and then there's what Billay said above which is totally spot on. I think WV was suggesting the compromise the senator likely debated within himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.