Is morality dependent on religion?

[Pyrite]

"Because under their moral code, sexual immorality is just as moral as a husband/wife sexual relationship."

And in your moral code sexual propriety is moral! We just can't see eye to eye!

 

[MobBoss]

Can you direct me to the religion which influenced this particular moral code? (ie. a moral code which doesn't view homosexual acts as immoral acts)

Church of Satan maybe?

 

[IglooDame]

I did answer that very directly. You must have missed it.

I certainly must have. Feel free to post a link.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, as far as I know only Abrahamic religions view homosexuality as a sin; neither Dharmic religions (look at me, throwing big words around) nor any others do. It was frowned on in some societies for being an obstacle to population growth, but then in many societies it was widespread and even ritualized.

 

[MobBoss]

I certainly must have. Feel free to post a link.

Here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4159884&postcount=266

 

[warpus]

Actually, as far as I know only Abrahamic religions view homosexuality as a sin; neither Dharmic religions (look at me, throwing big words around) nor any others do. It was frowned on in some societies for being an obstacle to population growth, but then in many societies it was widespread and even ritualized.

Alright, you got me there. But I somehow doubt that North Americans who don't view homosexual acts as sinful have been influenced by non-Abrahamic religions when it comes to that specific point of view

Mobboss, one way to prove you wrong would be to find a moral code that goes against every single religion on the planet.

Are there any religions that don't view abortions as immoral? If not, why do some people hold that view?

 

[Sidhe]

Mob Boss already gave it, it's called Satanism, anything you will is fair game there, but it's archetypically amoral.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ MobBoss -

You have evaded specific answers to all four questions put to you. You are great at changing the subject and avoiding giving actual answers but I'm going to do you the courtesy of holding you to your statements this time.

The bible does not need to be specific as regards to those items any more than it wasnt specific about the price of tea in China while Christ was alive. It covers how people should act towards one another in those situations just as well today as it did 2k years ago.
I would say you limit religion too much.

I think it deals with such issues easily.

Bold by me.

You made the statement not me. I am calling your bluff. Please actually answer my three questions I previously posted using the bible as your reference. No excuses, no rofls, just plain, straight, religious-based morality answers specifically from the bible.

rofl. I fail to see the point of your question.

The point of my question is to hold you to your claim that you "think it deals with such issues easily." Prove it by doing so.


Once more:

1. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet?


Your answer so far:

I would say using biblical principles dont misrepresent yourself or bear false witness against another and deal fairly with others as you would have them deal with you. Perhaps you should explain further why intellectual property rights are such a "moral" problem that the bible has no answer to.

How does your answer address the morality of if copying a digital photo off of the internet is theft or not. Of course we shouldn't steal, that's easy, but does the bible say that such reprinting of digital photos is theft? What does the bible say is the morality of Digital Rights Management with regard to these digital photos?

I don't see "misrepresenting yourself" (a form of lying) or "bearing false witness" (another form of lying) as addressing the question of who owns what rights with regard to the images and at what point does the use or re-use in a private or public presentation make it become theft? This is an increasingly important moral issue of our times and a quote of scripture that specifically addresses this issue could be very helpful to all of us.

--------

2. How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon?


Your answer so far:

How is this any different than real estate disputes here on Earth?

It is different because with very few exceptions here on earth, the moon has land that has never been lived on and doesn't 'belong' to anyone already.

What does the bible say is the moral way to divide the land on the moon? Would it be moral to just give it to whoever grabs it first? How about the morality of whoever can actually hold it and use it gets to keep it? How about it be divided for the good of all mankind? If so how? Would it be moral to give everyone alive today 1/ 6 billionth of the land? What about the next generation, would it be moral then that they don't get any?

I can use logic to come up with a specific answer this question, because my method is adaptable. You claimed the bible can do the same and provide a religion-based morality so I for one would love the read the passage that specifically addresses this issue too.

--------

3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?


Your answer so far:

Once more, we divide it as we see fit as long as we honor God in doing it. There is no difference in dividing bandwith for use than dividing sheep for consumption. Different items, same principles.

Could you please explain to a poor heathen like myself how exactly we "honor god" in dividing the public broadcast frequencies. Sorry, but that didn't specifically answer this question either. What percent of the bandwidth should be reserved for use "honoring god"? Is it moral to honor everyone's god(s)? Is it moral to have a piece of bandwidth set aside for non-religious people to use to refute religion with discussions of logic and science?

There are lots of sheep and we can breed more as needed. It is not the same item or the same principal at all. The bandwidth available to us is fixed, and who gets what chunk for what purpose is again a modern morality question I would love to see the specific relevant bible passage that addresses it. How much bandwidth does the bible say should be put aside for commercial use? How much bandwidth does the bible say should go to non-profit charities? What does the bible say we morally should do when two individuals both use the same frequency and neither can get a working signal?

Again, I can use my adaptable, logic-based morality to work out a specific answer. Your fixed, 'set in stone' bible method can't specifically address this issue either.

--------

Bottom line, all three things you list here have no real need to be specifically listed in the bible.

I totally disagree. If we are in court and I am suing you because you re-posted a digital photo I made or are using space on the public bandwidth that I was using first then we would need a very specific moral-based answer as to who was right and a very specific moral-based justification from the judge as to why the ruling was made the way it was.

My logic-based morality can be used to provide just such a specific answer due again to it being adaptable to our changing times.

--------

Remember, this whole line of discussion came from these statements:

The bible fails to address many of today's moral issues (even when christians can agree amongst themselves what it really says and means).

I would disagree with you whole heartedly.

One of my main problems with religion is its inability to adapt to our changing times.

I would say you limit religion too much. I think it deals with such issues easily.

--------

The last question you have still yet to give a specific answer to (and it was your question):

If 20 people are living in a place with only food/water/oxygen to let 10 survive, logic dictates 10 should die so the rest could survive. How do the 10 to die get chosen? And is it moral to kill 10 people to 10 others can survive?

Your answer so far:

I am willing to bet that the 10 get chosen on who is weakest.

Quite simply take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.

Note: This is not a specific answer. You are in command. Do you kill anyone? On what specific bible-morality do you use make your choice?

The only real moral answer to it at all is the sacrifice of those that would CHOOSE to die as opposed to any "logical" choice selected who SHOULD die. Perhaps you are not convinced by my answer because you dont understand Christ's sacrifice for all of us.

...The point is that some choose to die so that others may live. Far more moral that the biggest dude of the bunch deciding who he doesnt like....

Note: Logic-based morality would not advocate that the 'biggest dude' gets to decide who he doesn't like.

Comment by Masquerouge:

Suppose you have 20 people that share your views on morality. you only have food for 10 people to survive. What you have yet to explain to me is how you will get 10 people to die. You have explained how people can be motivated to die, but not how you will get 10.
Because what if you have 20 people like you, following your morals, and choosing to die?

Please, a specific answer if you would. No vague, hazy, fuzzy nonsense about 'examples of Christ' or 'love of others'. You're the CO now - the men are standing by for your orders. What do you command? Lives hang in the balance. Share with us how you use your religious-based morality to make your decision and what that exact decision would be.

 

[Truronian]

Because under their moral code, sexual immorality is just as moral as a husband/wife sexual relationship.

So atheists have developed this moral code without religion's input?

Here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpo...&postcount=266

Please explain how this answer decides on the ten who will die

 

[MobBoss]

@ MobBoss -

You have evaded specific answers to all four questions put to you.

Uhm, no. If you dont like the answer I give, thats not my fault.

You made the statement not me. I am calling your bluff. Please actually answer my three questions I previously posted using the bible as your reference. No excuses, no rofls, just plain, straight, religious-based morality answers specifically from the bible.

I will endeavor to do so, but please dont insinuate that I am bluffing. I am not.

1. What's the bible's position on intellectual property rights of digital photos posted on the internet?

How does your answer address the morality of if copying a digital photo off of the internet is theft or not.

Once more, this is not a biblically moral question. It is a question of law. Either it is or is not illegal to copy a digital photo off the internet. If it is legal, I would say there is no biblical consideration to be made, unless of course the photos involved were porn or some other type of morally distasteful, albeit legal, content.

Of course we shouldn't steal, that's easy, but does the bible say that such reprinting of digital photos is theft?

Once more, the bible trumps the entire issue by saying thou shalt not steal, period. If, by law, copying digial photos is somehow stealing then the bible is very obvious in its answer - dont do it.

What does the bible say is the morality of Digital Rights Management with regard to these digital photos?

The bible isnt the manual for Digital Rights Management, but rather a manual for how a person lives their life. If it is illegal or immoral for a person to steal another persons copyrighted property then the bible has an answer to that - dont steal.

I don't see "misrepresenting yourself" (a form of lying) or "bearing false witness" (another form of lying) as addressing the question of who owns what rights with regard to the images and at what point does the use or re-use in a private or public presentation make it become theft? This is an increasingly important moral issue of our times and a quote of scripture that specifically addresses this issue could be very helpful to all of us.

Once more, I totally disagree about this being a moral issue at all. It is a point of law and one that needs to be addressed by society. The bible is a reference on how individual people should treat others and live thier life; not a treatise on intellectual property rights.

2. How about real estate claims for particular pieces of property on the moon?

It is different because with very few exceptions here on earth, the moon has land that has never been lived on and doesn't 'belong' to anyone already.

How is it any different than say, the polar ice caps? Who do those belong to?

What does the bible say is the moral way to divide the land on the moon?

Please. Your questions actually border on the inane.

Would it be moral to just give it to whoever grabs it first? How about the morality of whoever can actually hold it and use it gets to keep it? How about it be divided for the good of all mankind? If so how? Would it be moral to give everyone alive today 1/ 6 billionth of the land? What about the next generation, would it be moral then that they don't get any?

Once again, this is not a biblically moral question at all, but moreso one of nations and what they are going to do (if anything) about the moon. I highly doubt any individuals will be able to get to the moon to stake their claim anytime soon, but if they were to do so, ala the land rush of the United States past, whats to say they dont have a right to the moon-land? This is far more a topic of international debate than any personal morality and as in all things, I would expect a first come, first served type of mentality to develop in the absence of anything else.

I can use logic to come up with a specific answer this question, because my method is adaptable. You claimed the bible can do the same and provide a religion-based morality so I for one would love the read the passage that specifically addresses this issue too.

Once more the issues you bring up are not ones of personal morality, but items that are to be decided upon by nations and law. The bible is specific in how YOU as an individual are to respond to how the nation/states create laws or decide the matter.

3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?

Could you please explain to a poor heathen like myself how exactly we "honor god" in dividing the public broadcast frequencies.

You honor God by obeying the law and not stealing from others. Once more, its up to the FCC on how this is done, not the bible. But the bible has the answer for how you as an individual act upon those rules.

Sorry, but that didn't specifically answer this question either. What percent of the bandwidth should be reserved for use "honoring god"? Is it moral to honor everyone's god(s)? Is it moral to have a piece of bandwidth set aside for non-religious people to use to refute religion with discussions of logic and science?

Your blatent sarcasm adds nothing to the conversation. Once more, these questions have nothing to do with the bible, but with the laws of man concerning such things as bandwidth. The bibles answers for such things are on a personal level, as in the decisions you make personally on a daily basis. This isnt any different than in Jesus' time when the Romans had their own laws and rules - the bible was still the bible without regard to Roman law. And its the same today in regards to these supposedly "moral" issues you bring forth. But these issues you bring up are not "moral" issues at all...they are simply points of law to be decided upon by society.

I totally disagree. If we are in court and I am suing you because you re-posted a digital photo I made or are using space on the public bandwidth that I was using first then we would need a very specific moral-based answer as to who was right and a very specific moral-based justification from the judge as to why the ruling was made the way it was.

Once again, for the record, these are not MORAL issues. These are point of law issues. Either it is or is not a crime based upon the law. Period. If the law dictates that I have indeed harmed you by stealing from you, then the bible is specific about the morality of that. Stealing is immoral.

The last question you have still yet to give a specific answer to (and it was your question):

Actually, I did give a specific answer. Just because you dont understand how the spirit would work in a self-sacrifice situation is not my fault.

Note: This is not a specific answer. You are in command. Do you kill anyone? On what specific bible-morality do you use make your choice?

I disagree. It is a specific answer. Just because you dont understand it isnt my fault. If I were in such a group, and the group were comprised of devout christians, I am sure the answer would be found through prayer and an understanding of the sacrifice that Jesus made. Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). If you dont understand how that works /shrug.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ MobBoss -

Saying the bible says "thou shall not steal" does not cover the issue.

Use morality to define when it is and when it is not theft.

Do you see the difference?

Questions of law are questions of morality, as laws are based on morality. When we make a new law we ask ourselves if it is moral. I can use logic-based morality to answer for new and emerging points in our ever-changing set of laws. The bible is a one-shot only deal and can't and doesn't adapt to changing times because these issues didn't even exist at the time it was written.

--------

How about actually answering the questions without the smart comments:

Q: 2. What does the bible say is the moral way to divide the land on the moon?
A: Please. Your questions actually border on the inane.

It's not inane, it's a real issue we will have to face. And again that didn't answer the question.

How about just answering the &^%$# question! Because you can't? I double-dog dare you!

The ancients who wrote the bible didn't even know what the moon was. Lots of stuff on how slavery is O.K., but not much about the moon. And you really think this text isn't outdated and just a wee-bit obsolete?


Q: 3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?
A: Once more, its up to the FCC on how this is done, not the bible. But the bible has the answer for how you as an individual act upon those rules.

I didn't ask who it was up to I asked how YOU would morally decide the answer using your religion-based morality, and how the bible in any way has scripture that specifically addresses this question. It isn't up to any individual it's up to society to make a moral choice and then encode that choice into law. Why can't you just give a specific answer? The bible tells you what to do right? Didn't you say "I think it deals with such issues easily."? Do it then and actually deal with the issue!

--------

For the record just saying "Just because you dont understand it isnt my fault." doesn't mean you answered, and frankly if nobody understands your answer then it is your fault. Numerous posters have called you on this very point of fact.

Q: If 20 people are living in a place with only food/water/oxygen to let 10 survive, logic dictates 10 should die so the rest could survive. How do the 10 to die get chosen? And is it moral to kill 10 people to 10 others can survive?
A: Quite simply take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.

"Example of Christ"? What example of christ? Specifically now, what would christ do? Which example are you referring to? You don't have christ's powers so I'm more interested in what YOU would do? How would you use your morality to decide who lives and who dies? What criteria would you consider to base your decision on? I can give logic-based criteria, but am interested in your religion-based examples.


So you're the CO, and your orders to your men are:

"take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so."

Sorry boss, but huh? And your response was "Just because you dont understand it isnt my fault."? Do you give orders like that in the Army?

--------

I know you're intelligent, so show it. There is no shame in saying you didn't fully think through a post before you clicked "Submit Reply" or that maybe you just exaggerated a bit in a statement. We are all humans and all sin right?

People will forgive you faster if you are honest than if you are stubborn. Here's your chance. Do you fight on or do you chose the wise choice and be humble?

Oddly enough that sounds like a morality question.

 

[Masquerouge]

Except that for me, repentance is more than just apologizing. It involves genuine regret for what I did, and asking God's forgiveness. Perhaps the only difference is that I involve God in the process and you don't.

But there are things like not drinking coffee and tea that I don't do because I believe that obedience to God will help me more in the long run than whatever benefits I may get from them. Or going to church, and paying 10% of what I earn, some of which is used for humanitarian purposes but some of which helps teach our doctrine, which is important if it is true and we need to know it even after we die.

Suppose an external observer watches you repenting and me apologizing: would he notice the difference?

And do you view not drinking tea and coffee as something moral? Because if yes, then I'll admit that some moral codes are religion-specific: all the food restrictions, if religious people see them as moral, are something that an atheist would not do.

But my general point was to say that even if morality comes from difference sources, the results are often the same: I think that's why some people thus assume that morality comes from religion.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But my general point was to say that even if morality comes from difference sources, the results are often the same: I think that's why some people thus assume that morality comes from religion.

I agree that the results can't be predicted merely on the basis of religion; but I do think that there are some rules that I should follow because of what I believe - like the whole coffee/tea/alcohol thing.

 

[Azash]

Can you direct me to the religion which influenced this particular moral code? (ie. a moral code which doesn't view homosexual acts as immoral acts)

Church of Satan maybe?

Did you just say only satanists would be accepting of homosexual acts?

 

[GenMarshall]

I have been reconsidering my vote on this issue. I have voted yes on the basis that I have been ignorant as well as being on the moral highground.

However, after doing a lot of thinking and a lot of soul searching. I have came to a conclusion that morality is not dependent on religion. I even had my own morality when I used to be an agnostic. So I kind of hurt my own past so to speek in saying that I was immoral when I was an agnostic.
I do like to vote "No, religion is not dependent on religion" if given the chance to vote again.

 

[silver 2039]

Church of Satan maybe?

You know nothing about Satanisim. Stop besmirching the good name of the Church of Satan.

 

[MobBoss]

@ MobBoss -

Saying the bible says "thou shall not steal" does not cover the issue.

Use morality to define when it is and when it is not theft.

Do you see the difference?

No. You use LAW to define when it is theft. The morality comes in when you break the law.

That is the difference.

Questions of law are questions of morality, as laws are based on morality.

Not always. How is it immoral to drive at 65 mph in a 55 mph zone? In the cases you listed there is no inherit biblical morality at stake.

When we make a new law we ask ourselves if it is moral.

Once more, I dont think that is exactly how congress defines its thinking process.

I can use logic-based morality to answer for new and emerging points in our ever-changing set of laws. The bible is a one-shot only deal and can't and doesn't adapt to changing times because these issues didn't even exist at the time it was written.

People are the same today as they were 2000 years ago. Same type of problems...just different scale.

How about actually answering the questions without the smart comments:

I did.

Q: 2. What does the bible say is the moral way to divide the land on the moon?
A: Please. Your questions actually border on the inane.

It's not inane, it's a real issue we will have to face. And again that didn't answer the question.

My answer was also more than just saying its inane. Sorry you cant seem to get that.

How about just answering the &^%$# question! Because you can't? I double-dog dare you!

I did answer the question. /shrug.

The ancients who wrote the bible didn't even know what the moon was. Lots of stuff on how slavery is O.K., but not much about the moon. And you really think this text isn't outdated and just a wee-bit obsolete?

The ancients? People even before christs time knew of the stars and their rotation and the seasons. Think you could build a pyramid to the specs the Egpytians did? Good luck. Nope..I dont think its obsolete at all. Too bad for you that you think it is.

Q: 3. What's the bible law say about how we should divide the bandwidth of the public broadcast frequencies?
A: Once more, its up to the FCC on how this is done, not the bible. But the bible has the answer for how you as an individual act upon those rules.

I didn't ask who it was up to I asked how YOU would morally decide the answer using your religion-based morality, and how the bible in any way has scripture that specifically addresses this question. It isn't up to any individual it's up to society to make a moral choice and then encode that choice into law.

/boggle if it isnt up to any individual then why ask ME how I would morally decide the issue? As I said and was correct in saying...it is a POINT OF LAW, not INDIVIDUAL MORALITY.

Why can't you just give a specific answer? The bible tells you what to do right? Didn't you say "I think it deals with such issues easily."? Do it then and actually deal with the issue!

I did give a specific answer. You are being intentionally obtuse. I think we are about done here. The bible is a manual to deal with personal moral issues. That is what it deals with easily. What you have listed are not personal moral issues. Nuff said.

Q: If 20 people are living in a place with only food/water/oxygen to let 10 survive, logic dictates 10 should die so the rest could survive. How do the 10 to die get chosen? And is it moral to kill 10 people to 10 others can survive?
A: Quite simply take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so.

"Example of Christ"? What example of christ? Specifically now, what would christ do? Which example are you referring to? You don't have christ's powers so I'm more interested in what YOU would do?

And if you really have to ask THIS particular question "What would Christ do" that is precisely why you dont understand any of my answers. Christ sacrificed himself to save all of us....its not about his "powers". If you dont get that, you simply are not capable of comprehending what I am talking about.

How would you use your morality to decide who lives and who dies? What criteria would you consider to base your decision on? I can give logic-based criteria, but am interested in your religion-based examples.

The decision is based upon love of man. I would readily sacrifice my life for my wife and kids and since I am in the military, my fellow man as well.

Sorry boss, but huh? And your response was "Just because you dont understand it isnt my fault."? Do you give orders like that in the Army?

If the group of 20 people were christians I wouldnt have to explain it. They would understand.

I know you're intelligent, so show it. There is no shame in saying you didn't fully think through a post before you clicked "Submit Reply" or that maybe you just exaggerated a bit in a statement. We are all humans and all sin right?

People will forgive you faster if you are honest than if you are stubborn. Here's your chance. Do you fight on or do you chose the wise choice and be humble?

You assume, incorrectly, that you are right and I am wrong. However, you are incorrect. The bible is not outdated. What it contains is just as meaningful for us today as those 2000 years ago. You dont think so, and thus trot out moon property questions to prove your point. However, your point is moot as of course the bible isnt "specific" about property on the moon, but it is specific on how individuals should approach and deal with morals. The question of "moon property" isnt a moral question at all, but one that is a point of law.

If you cant comprehend and understand that, then there is no reason to continue the conversation.

 

[MobBoss]

You know nothing about Satanisim. Stop besmirching the good name of the Church of Satan.

Funniest....post....ever.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

CivGeneral, once again you showed us that you may be the only person on the Internet who will regularly apologize and admit when you are wrong. Congratulations.

 

[MobBoss]

CivGeneral, once again you showed us that you may be the only person on the Internet who will regularly apologize and admit when you are wrong. Congratulations.

Stop congratulating him. Constantly apologizing and saying you are wrong is NOT a desirable trait in my humble opinion. Personally, I think it just make you look inconsistent and a flip flopper on a scale that makes John Kerry look like an amatuer.

Civgeneral, let me ask you a question. If you didnt think you were immoral when you were an agnostic, then why change your belief system. And also, you have repeatedly said that you lived an immoral life prior to becoming more catholic, and that the decision to do so was an effort to leave that old lifestyle behind, so whats with all the changing of opinion all the time?