Is morality dependent on religion?

[Sahkuhnder]

@ MobBoss -

The answer "Please. Your questions actually border on the inane." is not answering any question. It is an evasion, pure and simple. [Note: You previously had all the questions and already agreed you could "easily" answer them]


The answer "thou shall not steal" is not an answer to a question asking 'at what point does it morally become theft'? It is an evasion, pure and simple.


The answer "rofl. I fail to see the point of your question. [Note: You previously had all the questions and already agreed you could "easily" answer them] 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." is not an answer to a question asking 'at what point does it morally become theft'? Your answer saying that 'lying is wrong' is an evasion, pure and simple.


The answer "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." is not an answer to a question asking how you morally believe it should be divided. It is an evasion, pure and simple.


You claim your bible can easily provide morality with regard to modern issues, yet strangely refuse to actually do so.

You had the exact questions before you made your claim that your bible could "deal with such issues easily" (link), yet now you blame the questions and call them inane.

--------

Other posters (link, link, link) have called you to task on your so-called answers like "take the example of Christ and those called to sacrifice their lives for the love of others would do so." and I personally have done so twice. Your response:

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

And what if they weren't christian! Where did you or anyone else ever say 20 christians? You are the one that made up the question, yet you yourself refuse to answer your own question. Why not just answer the question with a direct answer? It is an evasion, pure and simple.

You recently just said "The decision is based upon love of man.", but still haven't told us what that specific decision actually is.

--------

I did answer the question. /shrug.

No sir, you did not. There is a difference between giving a response and actually answering the questions. See top of this post for examples of non-answer responses.

If those questions were on a philosophy class ethics test in college, how do you think your 'answers' would score?

--------

Just for more fun:

Knowing "of the stars and their rotation and the seasons" is not the same as, and in no way implies, anything about "knowing what the moon was". The ancients that wrote the bible had absolutely no idea what the moon really was. Including the lol lol in your response just makes your inaccurate comparison look that much worse.

--------

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

Is that the real reason you want to quit the conversation? Or maybe we are getting unpleasantly close to the truth here that the old and unchangeable bible can in no possible way adapt to our ever-changing and evolving legal, ethical and moral situation?

Many other people have told you your answers weren't answers. Many other people can't understand your evasions. The problem isn't that I don't comprehend and understand, it is that I comprehend and understand all too well. My children behave in exactly the same manner when cornered after making a statement they can't support.

--------

Once again - Why not take just a moment and post real answers that actually address the moral issues raised by the questions? It's not too late to prove me wrong and make me the fool by providing specific, bible-based religious morality that "easily" addresses the moral positions in question.

[The bible] is specific on how individuals should approach and deal with morals.

Fine. Then please tell us exactly how individuals should approach and deal with these moral questions by using the bible:

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

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

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

4.

If 20 people [Note: Not christians, just 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?

EDIT - fixed broken link.

 

[warpus]

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.

He has shown that he has an open mind - unlike you. I have respect for people like that.

 

[MobBoss]

He has shown that he has an open mind - unlike you. I have respect for people like that.

I dont see you changing your position at all. Does that mean you dont have an open mind?

Or is it simply a one way street?

Since you only seem to respect those that share your position I can only assume you indeed think it is a one way street.

And once more...I dont equate having an open mind to someone who constantly changes their position over and over and over again for whatever reason.

You might, but then /shrug.

 

[Veritass]

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.

Excellent point. The Church of Religioius Science does not have any proscription against homosexuality, and so there is probably a higher percentage of homosexuals in the membership than in the general population. I know several who came to Religious Science after being demonized in the religions they were brought up in. They still want to have a relationship with God, but they no longer can do so because of the relationships with the other people in those churches.

Those that want to argue for purely logical morality (which I believe there can be) might want to point out that homosexuality is illogical if you believe that the only purpose of sexuality is to procreate. However, I think most of us have figured out that sexuality has other purposes as well . I think this just goes to show that humans are driven by much more than just logic. Logically, there is no reason that people should not enjoy sexuality, companionship, intimacy, partnership, and commitment inside an adult, consenting homosexual relationship the same as heterosexuals.

 

[Azash]

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.

This is called "admitting your mistakes", and is a fascinatingly important part of debating.

BTW, what did you mean by your earlier statement that only satanists support gays?

 

[MobBoss]

The answer "Please. Your questions actually border on the inane." is not answering any question. It is an evasion, pure and simple. [Note: You previously had all the questions and already agreed you could "easily" answer them]

You said this in your last post. Are we down to just regurgitating that which was said over and over? Please note, I didnt say this in my last post, but attempted, once more, to answer the questions in a manner which you could understand. It would seem I wasnt successful.

The answer "thou shall not steal" is not an answer to a question asking 'at what point does it morally become theft'? It is an evasion, pure and simple.

No. It becomes theft at the point when congress (or whatever body in authority) makes a law making such practice a theft. Stealing intellectual property is still theft isnt it?

The answer "rofl. I fail to see the point of your question. [Note: You previously had all the questions and already agreed you could "easily" answer them] 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." is not an answer to a question asking 'at what point does it morally become theft'? Your answer saying that 'lying is wrong' is an evasion, pure and simple.

Re-Gurge-I-tation. Already been answered several times. NOT evasion.

The answer "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." is not an answer to a question asking how you morally believe it should be divided. It is an evasion, pure and simple.

More of the same.

You claim your bible can easily provide morality with regard to modern issues, yet strangely refuse to actually do so.

These are not moral questions. What part of that do you not understand?

You had the exact questions before you made your claim that your bible could "deal with such issues easily"

I have done so to my satisfaction. Sadly, my satisfaction has nothing to do with your satisfaction. I still maintain that the bible is most certainly a moral guide in how we live our daily lives. That hasnt changed one iota.

And what if they weren't christian! Where did you or anyone else ever say 20 christians?

If they were not christian I dont think you can reach a moral answer to the question.

You are the one that made up the question, yet you yourself refuse to answer your own question. Why not just answer the question with a direct answer? It is an evasion, pure and simple.

blah blah blah. Nope. Once more, I did answer it. You just dont like my answers is all. I can tell we are done here...that is unless you really enjoy posting the same crap over and over.

If those questions were on a philosophy class ethics test in college, how do you think your 'answers' would score?

I would say it would depend on the professor. And no doubt if I were writing for a grade I might write a page or so in support of my position, with references of course.

Is that the real reason you want to quit the conversation?

You can assume all you want. Personally, I dont find running in circles all that enjoyable.

Many other people have told you your answers weren't answers.

Many? ok, whatever.

Fine. Then please tell us exactly how individuals should approach and deal with these moral questions by using the bible:

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

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

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

Precisely what I mean by running in circles. I have done as you ask. You dont like my answers. Oh well. Those are not moral questions in any way shape or form. As I have said before you may as well ask "What is the bibles position about tea in china and the morality of it"? It would be just as pertinent and just as incorrect to assume such a question has anything to do with morality.

 

[MobBoss]

This is called "admitting your mistakes", and is a fascinatingly important part of debating.

In my opinion its called "being blown about as a leaf on the wind". And CG is renowned in the OT for incessant backtracking.

BTW, what did you mean by your earlier statement that only satanists support gays?

Did I say this? Nope.

 

[warpus]

No. It becomes theft at the point when congress (or whatever body in authority) makes a law making such practice a theft. Stealing intellectual property is still theft isnt it?

So I'm wondering - under old communist law (in the USSR and Poland, for example) it was perfectly legal to copy copyright VHS tapes and sell them.

So since it wasn't illegal to steal copyright material under that law, it wasn't immoral?

 

[warpus]

I dont see you changing your position at all. Does that mean you dont have an open mind?

Or is it simply a one way street?

I've changed my position on various issues many times in the past - but I won't just do it on a whim.. I have to be convinced that I was in fact wrong!

And once more...I dont equate having an open mind to someone who constantly changes their position over and over and over again for whatever reason.

Neither do I.

But I respect people who keep an open mind and can admit when they are wrong.. and I do not respect people who stick to their ways no matter what.

 

[MobBoss]

So I'm wondering - under old communist law (in the USSR and Poland, for example) it was perfectly legal to copy copyright VHS tapes and sell them.

So since it wasn't illegal to steal copyright material under that law, it wasn't immoral?

I see your point and I agree with it. Stealing is immoral, whether it is deemed legal or not. Copyrighted material is plainly someone else's property. Point of law does not necessarily morality make. Earlier I used abortion as a direct example of this. I think abortion under most circumstances, to be an immoral practice....but it is a legal practice under the law.

I've changed my position on various issues many times in the past - but I won't just do it on a whim.. I have to be convinced that I was in fact wrong!

I am the same.

 

[warpus]

I see your point and I agree with it. Stealing is immoral, whether it is deemed legal or not. Copyrighted material is plainly someone else's property. Point of law does not necessarily morality make. Earlier I used abortion as a direct example of this. I think abortion under most circumstances, to be an immoral practice....but it is a legal practice under the law.

So good, we can both agree that the law does not equate morality. Immoral laws have been in place in the past - and people often disagree on the morality of laws that are in place today.

You claim that all morality originates from religion.

But then how do we determine if an action is moral or not if it hasn't been specifically covered in the Bible? There might be laws that tell us if it's legal or not - but as we can both agree they will not necessarily tell us if it's a moral action or not.

I'm also wondering about this: If all morality comes from religion and morality is absolute: What happens when 2 religions disagree on the morality of a certain action? Obviously since you're Christian you're going to go with the Christian point of view and observe that moral code.. but a Hindu would observe a different moral code. How do we know which is 'more moral' ? I'd say that it depends on each culture - but you'd disagree with me since you hold that morality comes from religion, not culture.

 

[MobBoss]

You claim that all morality originates from religion.

Not quite. I claim that "good" morality (i.e. do unto others) comes from religion. Not necessarily, the "might makes right" type of morality.

But then how do we determine if an action is moral or not if it hasn't been specifically covered in the Bible? There might be laws that tell us if it's legal or not - but as we can both agree they will not necessarily tell us if it's a moral action or not.

Please give me an example of a morality (not point of law) question that you dont think the bible has the answer to.

I'm also wondering about this: If all morality comes from religion and morality is absolute: What happens when 2 religions disagree on the morality of a certain action? Obviously since you're Christian you're going to go with the Christian point of view and observe that moral code.. but a Hindu would observe a different moral code. How do we know which is 'more moral' ?

Ah, thats where we arm wrestle. All kidding aside, that is precisely why we discuss those sort of things here.

I'd say that it depends on each culture - but you'd disagree with me since you hold that morality comes from religion, not culture.

I generally am of the opinion that cultures and religions are inextricably entwined. So I dont think I disagree with you.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Not quite. I claim that "good" morality (i.e. do unto others) comes from religion. Not necessarily, the "might makes right" type of morality.

Didn't we cover this already?

'Might makes right' is not moral. It is not part of a logic-based morality or any other actual morality system I am aware of.

Is is immoral. The opposite of moral. There is "good" morality and "bad" immorality. There is no "bad" morality. If it is "bad" then it isn't morality.

 

[Azash]

Alright, you said that, lol, the church of satan influenced whatever viewpoints don't view homosexual acts as immoral.

Is this because of some polarized "If not Godly then satanic and evul" viewpoint?

BTW, I confess a part of my morality is philosophically influenced. I tend to follow Confucius' advice: "Do unto others as ye would have others do unto ye"

 

[GenMarshall]

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.

Why did I change my belief system? This is more on a personal level because I felt there was something missing in my life that no material objects or interpersonal relationship would fill in.

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?

I personaly felt, after going through the Ten Commandments, that I lived an immoral life prior to becoming more Catholic. I do admit and say that I still struggle with the old things from my old lifestyle.

You should also know that I am still young and trying to seek a stable moral foundation for myself. I still see that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and still see homosexual acts as a sin. But do I condem the homosexual himself? No. I still treat the person with homosexaul tendencies with dignity and respect and avoid any unjust discrimination against them. I also meditated uppon the passage from St. John 8:2-11 on the woman who have been caught in adultery. I came to find out that the passage also deals with the person not worring about the sins of other people than their own. Jesus (Who was without sin) simply told the woman to go and sin no more. The people with sin had no possition to attack anyone for their sins, since they had sins in themselves and would need to worry about their own sins.

I also feel that it is wrong to impose my morals on other people. Imposing one's morals onto others would make the reciver more turned off and less receptive of the gospels. I learned the hardway on being on the moral highground and pushing my morals onto others which caused me to alienate myself from the rest of the people who dont hold my views.

I also went through the Commandments and noticed that I have broken many of them by simply imposing my morals onto others. "A new commandment I give unto you, 'That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another'" (John 13:34 Douay-Rheims). When I imposed my morals onto others, I am not loving my neigbor but insted condeming my neighbor.

When I said earlyer in this thread that "non-religious people are immoral and dont have any morals". I am basicly making a harsh judgement against thoes people who are atheists/agnostics. Surely there are immoral atheists or agnostics somewhere on the planet, but they dont represent the entire pool of the atheist/agnostic population. If I judge and generalize an entire group just because of the actions of one person, I made a harsh judgement. I myself dont like to be judge, but I judge others so in return I am judged as well. This brings up three quotes that I have meditated uppon; "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others." -Confucius, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12), "Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens. Thou shalt love thy friend as thyself. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:18 Douay-Rheims).

Not quite. I claim that "good" morality (i.e. do unto others) comes from religion.

Even the quote from Confucius is not from religious (I feel that Confucianism is more on the philosophy level and not religious)

 

[CurtSibling]

Is this trenchwar still going?

I think we can safely say that morality was around long before the new religions like islam and christianity.

Of course, islam/christian followers are trained to think all morality stems from their faith...And theirs alone.

Which would be fine, but all religions are telling their own version of the tale. They all claim they have 'truth'...

All bunkum in my humble view. Humans are genetically geared to be sociable, and not be misanthropic killers.
(it takes hard work!)

PS
I had this same debate with two Jehova's Witnesses at my door the other day.

They were soon subdued by my politely-delivered cynical assessment of their organisation, and religion as a whole.

Which can be summed up thus: People controlling people with fear and tradition.

.

 

[warpus]

Not quite. I claim that "good" morality (i.e. do unto others) comes from religion. Not necessarily, the "might makes right" type of morality.

So would you say that there is morality out there that you disagree with that doesn't come from religion? ie. "bad" (in your eyes) morality ie. homosexuals should be able to marry, abortion should be allowed, human cloning is ok.

Please give me an example of a morality (not point of law) question that you dont think the bible has the answer to.

If we encounter an intelligent alien civilization - would it be morally ok to kill members of their species? Assume that they're all atheist.

 

[toh6wy]

Which can be summed up thus: People controlling people with fear and tradition.

That's only a summary of the negative aspects of religion. There are positives, too -- being spiritual can have a good psychological effect, for example.

 

[MobBoss]

Didn't we cover this already?

'Might makes right' is not moral. It is not part of a logic-based morality or any other actual morality system I am aware of.

Its not moral to YOUR code....its dang well very moral to those wielding the hammer.

Is is immoral. The opposite of moral. There is "good" morality and "bad" immorality. There is no "bad" morality. If it is "bad" then it isn't morality.

One mans immorality is anothers morality. Case in point....abortion to me is immoral......to many it isnt. I would say that someone who has an abortion, especially for purely selfish reasons has exercised bad morality. But to a lot of people getting an abortion wouldnt be immoral at all.

 

[MobBoss]

Alright, you said that, lol, the church of satan influenced whatever viewpoints don't view homosexual acts as immoral.

Nope. I was asked for a religion that would probably embrace homosexuality. I answered "Church of Satan, maybe?".

Is this because of some polarized "If not Godly then satanic and evul" viewpoint?

BTW, I confess a part of my morality is philosophically influenced. I tend to follow Confucius' advice: "Do unto others as ye would have others do unto ye"[/QUOTE]

Confucius? Hmmm, I do think Moses put forth the idea first.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity