morals

[Siberian Husky]

archaology proves fact.

How could you make such an audaciously bold statement?

It is a known fact that archeological discoveries alot in favor towards the evolutionary theory of man.

Alot of religious based websites are popping up as of late making attempts to merge into the science to solidify their claims.

"if you cant beat them, join them"..?

[pianistimo]

ok.  how many things have been reassigned ages?  just watching a documentary and a woman was proving that a site that had been dug up was really not dated correctly.  i am not an archaologist - but am aware of the misdating that occurs.  it takes a certain number of years for a geological layer of sedimetn to occur unless a natural disaster takes place.  it could be possible that the 'dinosaurs' are simply extinct animals that existed much closer to our time frame in less scary bodies.  lizard like?

[johnny-boy]

Playboy magazines? Excellent! Bring them on. I heard there are some great articles and in-depth interviews in them - Berney Hart

Yeah, that's what I bought them for.  

John

[thalbergmad]

Playboy magazines? Excellent! Bring them on. I heard there are some great articles and in-depth interviews in them.

BW.
B.

Too American orientated.

I would recommend. Mens World, Knave, Fiesta or Razzle for interviews.

Penthouse, Models Directory, Mayfair & Whitehouse International for picture quality.

Hope this helps.

Thal

[johnny-boy]

Too American orientated-Thal

Yeah, it's an American magazine.

John

[berceuse]

On the subject of books about morals, I like the authors: Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Proust, Hemingway, Pushkin, Gogol, Bulgakov, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien.............wait, they were all Christian writers, I guess we can't take anything they say seriously.

[prometheus]

You can't write a good book without touching those subjects.

But those books touch on it. They generally don't teach. If a novel tries to lecture you on morals if is often a bad read. Of course not always since there are many ways in which a book can be good or bad.


But there are also people that try to write on morals and ethics alone. They are called philosophers.

[berceuse]

You can't write a good book without touching those subjects.

But those books touch on it. They generally don't teach. If a novel tries to lecture you on morals if is often a bad read. Of course not always since there are many ways in which a book can be good or bad.


But there are also people that try to write on morals and ethics alone. They are called philosophers.

Ok, Nietzsche's concepts of "The Last Man","Übermensch" and existentialism can be found in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment as well as Notes From Underground. Turgenev's Fathers and Sons is all about nihilism. In Gogol's Dead Souls the main character, Chichikov, is a Philistine. Another Dostoevsky book, The Idiot (probably my favorite book), is about a man, Myshkin, with Christ-like morals and attributes in a nihilistic society. These books are almost entirely about morality, you could even say the writers are philosophical novelists. Actually, Tolstoy WAS a philosopher, Dostoevsky was heavily influenced by the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. These books are just as philosophical as any writings of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, Marx, Hegel or whoever else.

[prometheus]

It's not unusual for philosophers to write novels to lay out their ideas. You already mentioned Nietzsche.

But a novel is not an attempt at intellectual debate about morals.

Note that my main point was that a novelist often can't make blunt moral points but rather has to touch on them and invoke the question and doubt in them. At least that is what the better books do, imo.

A philosopher writing a philosophic book tries to lay it out as dryly as possible. Ethics and morals is probably the main subject left to philosophy since science has absorbed a lot of the traditional areas of philosophy.

[sarahlein]

But there are also people that try to write on morals and ethics alone. They are called philosophers.

So let's take a society of people who philosophising about life is what they did/do best- the (ancient) Greeks

Has anyone heard about the Sophists? They were a group-a prominent one at that-of Greek teachers in the 5th century B.C.E. They taught that standards of right and wrong/ morals were determined by popular opinion.

In their words: " Whatever things seem just and fine to each city, are just and fine for that city, so long as it thinks them so".

In other words, decide according to what the majority in your community would likely decide.
Do you agree /don't agree? Elaborate...

[pianistimo]

this is how homeowner associations work.  they are not necessarily fair - but everyone agrees.  there are cliques and they get their way.  the others may not agree, but are outvoted. 

here in pa - a board of something or other - voted to force some longtime homeowners to sell their property so the school district could expand (if i read the article correctly).  cheating the weaker people so the strong can survive is not ideal, imo.  but often happens in many governments.  someone who has owned a home and property so long should not be forced out.

changing the subject slightly - there has been interest in where exactly the founding fathers of the usa got their ideas for the constitution.  the majority of people at that time were not opposed to biblical ideals and many were drawn from there.  in fact, the first english bible printed was a congressional directive.  also, benjamin franklin had a large part to do with the prayer that is said (and still said) when congress is convened.  he wasn't even thought to be particularly religious by most - but in a letter to george washington - he spelled out why he thought the usa was given providence in many situations in the war against the british.  in return for the answered prayer - he felt that the government should recognize this providence at every convening.

[pianistimo]

and when countries make a decision in morality - such as legalizing prostitution - which germany did in 2002 - guess what 30,000 to 40,000 european women were brought in as sex slaves.  it may be legal.  but is it moral? 

this is a dillema that is given when a country denys God.  the results are laws that are non-definable in terms of practice.  sure, they get more taxes this way.  but what if they brought the women in legally.  gave them human rights.  allowed them to work in decent professions. 

now, i'm not saying that governments aren't pretty much all corrupt.  this is sort of according to the times we live in. there are ideals.  and there is reality.  terrorism is messing it all up.  none of us are truly living in a democracy any more anyways.  but, it's the best we can do under the conditions we are given.  if we allowed as free of immigration as in the past - terrorists would have free reign.  probably , this is germany's thinking, too.  but, before terrorism - the usa had the most immigrant population of any country.  why?  because of laws about freedom.

[mike_lang]

Has anyone heard about the Sophists? They were a group-a prominent one at that-of Greek teachers in the 5th century B.C.E. They taught that standards of right and wrong/ morals were determined by popular opinion.

I think this is absurd.  There has to be an objective morality - morality would be meaningless if it were subject to the whims and fancies of each individual or group of individuals.  Therefore, the Ten Commandments.  All morality can be derived from these ten statements, in the light of Christ's public revelation.

[e60m5]

I don't think I have ever stepped foot into one of these 'discussions' before, and am under the impression that this is my first time doing so here, but I may be wrong on this point (it has been a number of years since my arrival).  However, I'm making this post for a couple of reasons.

Another moral principle would be to protect the weak. Because often the strong get they way and the strong will bully or abuse the weak. So if you stand up for the weak you will be doing well. And with 'the weak' I don't mean 'the underdog'. I mean animals, children, the sick and disabled, etc.

There are many more things one can base morality on.

Do note that the law doesn't have right on its side. Laws can be just as well bad as good.

I am not going to argue with Pianistimo again. Let me just say that I think everything she said is extremely silly.

I understand this post as saying that there are many possible foundations for a moral theory, such as the principle mentioned concerning the protection of the week.

This is a demonstration of a misunderstanding of morality and moral theory.  Your statement in respect of the protection of the weak is only a moral principle insofar as a principle denotes a moral precept.  One cannot base morality on moral precepts any more than one can ascribe moral authority to a statute book.  Moral precepts depend on underlying moral theory from which they derive their morality. 

In other words, you cannot claim that 'protecting the weak' is a principle upon which one can 'base' morality, because 'protecting the weak' provides no criteria by which to define morality, or to determine what is moral and what is not.  In lay terms, who is to say that protecting the weak is moral?  You cannot base morality on a moral precept any more than you can base morality on 'The law forbids motorists from travelling at speeds greater than 30mph on this stretch of highway.'  It is a descriptive precept, not a normative theory.  So it is impossible to base morality upon. 

Contrary to your assertions, morality, if it is to be indicative of a standard to which we as individuals are subjected and if it is to be more than mere relativism, requires a moral theory which transcends issues such as relativism, and which by its own very nature is a self-supporting moral theory, able to delineate not only what 'is' moral and what 'is not' moral (for these are functions able to be discharged by a statute book), but also why something is moral, and why something is not. 

Such as ... (and here I shall leave the readers of this thread to fill in the blank)

I also take issue, logically, with some of your further statements in this thread, but I can deal with these very quickly.

Your question in relation to the (im)morality of sexuality is a logical abomination, as one cannot possibly question the morality of an act without adopting a moral standard to question it by.  Your statement in relation to the Abraham and Isaac story demonstrates an abysmal failure in reading comprehension, so I will not get started on that.  Further, your attempt to separate the OT/NT 'Gods' is a stunning misunderstanding of Christian theology. 

Your anecdote of a Christian who claimed that Satan can 'take people to hell regardless of what God wants to do with them' is much more interesting than the above points, as it is actually true, subjecting to a correct understanding of what it means for what God wants for somebody.  The notion of a 'want' must only be used very carefully when talking about an omnipotent being, because omnipotence in its usual sense precludes the notion of a 'want', as any 'want' would presumably be an actuality.  What it means for a being such as the Christian God to 'want' something is a subject which has proven, historically, extremely difficult to answer.  I won't address it now; if anybody is interested, the place to go to is to any one of the incredible number of works dealing with questions about 'God's will'.  I can address the tangential issue raised here quickly.  God's love is universal, but if a sinful individual does not accept Christ, he will not be saved, despite God loving him all the same.

I will not even address your statement that 'almost all Christian morality concerns sexuality'.  From one who attempts to construct reasoned and intellectual posts (and I give you credit for that - it is much more than many others here attempt), this statement is like a flash-bang grenade packed with stupidity and ignorance. 

And, finally, to your point about Christians having stronger 'opinions' on their faith than on other matters - naturally, 'opinion' is a dangerous word to use in this context, so I shall instead refer to the importance of a Christian's faith; in other words, I shall restate your point as being related to the fact that to a Christian, their faith is more important to them than other things, such as cooking (even if they are professional cooks), if you do not mind.  To this I ask you - if it is true, would it not be more important than anything else in the world?

If it seems I am antagonising your posts in particular, I apologise; this is not my intention.  My intention is to clear up the abundant misunderstandings in relation to Christian theology which have been thrown around in this thread as purported fact and reason.  I certainly have nothing against you, but I take issue with the misunderstandings of your posts.

To those in this thread who lament the advent of religious discussion in this thread - can you seriously expect a thread about morality to proceed without mention of religion? 

[prometheus]

This is a demonstration of a misunderstanding of morality and moral theory. Your statement in respect of the protection of the weak is only a moral principle insofar as a principle denotes a moral precept. One cannot base morality on moral precepts any more than one can ascribe moral authority to a statute book. Moral precepts depend on underlying moral theory from which they derive their morality.

The underlying theory would be utilitarianism.
 

In other words, you cannot claim that 'protecting the weak' is a principle upon which one can 'base' morality,

I didn't say that that in itself was the basis. I said that it is not impossible to propose moral principles that are universal to all, or most, humans and that one can argue and discuss about.

The point was that you don't use dogma. You don't say: "This is a moral principle because it is." But you can question it and still come to the conclusion that it is a reasonable principle. As you may have seen I got several positive reactions on that principle from people that claim they were both suprised and glad they could agree.

One could even argue that because this principle seems to invoke such a positive response from humans when they try to be altruistic that this principle is universal to all humans.

Contrary to your assertions, morality, if it is to be indicative of a standard to which we as individuals are subjected and if it is to be more than mere relativism, requires a moral theory which transcends issues such as relativism, and which by its own very nature is a self-supporting moral theory, able to delineate not only what 'is' moral and what 'is not' moral (for these are functions able to be discharged by a statute book), but also why something is moral, and why something is not. 

You can have relativistic morality. I even would go so far as to say that there is no human society without it.

I don't think one needs to be able to define what is moral and what is not. When you are looking at moral and ethics universal to humans you look at what values they hold regardless of culture. What is intrinsic human behavior the average human recognises as 'right'.

Then you can also have an intellectual debate and try to propose real theories in the scientific sense. But since this is about human society it is not that easy to do. Largely what one does is observe what happens and understanding why or how will be very hard.

Your question in relation to the (im)morality of sexuality is a logical abomination, as one cannot possibly question the morality of an act without adopting a moral standard to question it by.

How can a question be a logical abomination? I didn't use any deduction. I only asked what someone finds immoral about sexuality. Yes, good question. On what basis do they think sexuality is immoral? Is it something created by the devil? We know that has to be false and that thus the idea that sexuality is immoral is false. At least until someone comes up with something else.

Your statement in relation to the Abraham and Isaac story demonstrates an abysmal failure in reading comprehension, so I will not get started on that.

That's kind of weak. I think most people agree it is cruel to ask a father to sacrifice his son. Especially if it is a test of loyality. It just shows how jealous the OT god is.

  Further, your attempt to separate the OT/NT 'Gods' is a stunning misunderstanding of Christian theology. 

From a literary perspective it is easy to see that the OT god is very different from the NT god. You don't see the NT god ordering people around for whatever reason. Regardless of the nature of her behavior, they differ very greatly in the OT and the NT.



I will not even address your statement that 'almost all Christian morality concerns sexuality'.  From one who attempts to construct reasoned and intellectual posts (and I give you credit for that - it is much more than many others here attempt), this statement is like a flash-bang grenade packed with stupidity and ignorance. 

And, finally, to your point about Christians having stronger 'opinions' on their faith than on other matters - naturally, 'opinion' is a dangerous word to use in this context

Dangerous? If you would have said 'wrong' I may have understood. But now I have no idea what you are talking about. Dangerous for what or who and in which sense?

In other words, I shall restate your point as being related to the fact that to a Christian, their faith is more important to them than other things, such as cooking if you do not mind. To this I ask you - if it is true, would it not be more important than anything else in the world?

Maybe, yes. And that is dangerous. If you think your opinion of something is more important than anything in the world then the world may become the victim of your opinion. If you think the world is more important than your opinion you don't have this problem.

But one should note that there have been many atheists as well that have had opinions they considered to be more important than 'the world' which had destructive results. I just think that monotheists are very much susceptible to this. And if you think about it. If you really believe then of course your faith in god is more important than the world.

If it seems I am antagonising your posts in particular, I apologise; this is not my intention.

Of course. I am here to have an intellectual debate. I am glad when people respond and disagree. Often, when I overstate my opinion and people react and 'win' I will end up learning something. Which is more important to me than 'good or bad vibes' or 'winning or losing'

To those in this thread who lament the advent of religious discussion in this thread - can you seriously expect a thread about morality to proceed without mention of religion? 

Sure, for a religious person it will be very hard. But it is not impossible. Actually, if I had ignored Pianistimo, like I wanted to, it wouldn't have turned out so bad.

The problem with religion is that their morality is often taboo morality; things you must not do and which are backed by authority. It is morality you see exclusively in primitive societies. Taboo morality is almost always supported by authority and it would have been found very silly if this was not the case.

Also, religious morality has the problem that they postulate moral principles that are reasonable as taboo morality. For example, do not steal and do not murder. But it is not explained why these things are bad. The result is that someone following these precepts would be opposed to euthernasia, as we see in practice, while the idea behind not murdering does not find anything wrong with that.

Hindu's don't eat beef. Jewish and muslims don't eat pork. These are taboo's. There is no real reason for it being disallowed.
Now I am a vegetarian based on reason. So isn't that silly? What does it matter if you eat all meat except beef or pork?

[e60m5]

Utilitarianism is a normative moral conception in that it will prescribe rules and will explain why those rules are rules, but it is not sufficient in itself to ascribe to those rules any 'moral' dimension beyond their end result.  Conversely, utilitarianism derives its value from its end results. 

In other words, why be utilitarian, unless you believe in the outcome?  And, if you do believe in the outcome, why? 

It is not the be-all-and-end-all that many of its blind followers claim it to be.  It is an interesting academic concept.  But one need not even take it to stretching point to see why die-hard supporters of utilitarianism find it difficult to endorse to the full lengths of its implications.  Utilitarianism, of course, not only permits, but advocates and condones such acts as throwing Christians to the lions in the Colosseum in Ancient Rome.  After all, the thundering roars of approval of thousands and thousands of bloodthirsty fans and the pleasure and entertainment thereby derived will, if the number of spectators is increased ad infinitum, easily outweigh the (rather extreme) discomfort endured by the Christians in the arena. 

But these are both well-known aspects of utilitarianism in the moral sphere, and I need not say anything more about them which have not been said elsewhere.  In short, utilitarianism cannot exist outside of the context of a moral foundation which endorses its end results (and in that case, utilitarianism ceases to be the underlying theory and moral imperative per se, notwithstanding similarities of its end result), and even so, there are severe hurdles in the way of utilitarianism being adopted as a moral theory to its fullest extent.  I advance nothing new here, but merely acknowledge that this point has been addressed and negated by those far more capable and astute than I.

Your point about questioning the reasonability of moral principles appears to be unsustainable for two reasons.  Firstly, you assume, crucially, that there is a correlation between reasonability and morality.  Wherefrom you derive that statement is a mystery to me.  It makes some indefensible assumptions about the nature of morality, which I shall mention later.  Secondly, you appear to attempt to justify your claiming this by through the reactions of others to your statement of it.  Sorry, but to be taken seriously, this doesn't cut it. 

I think it very unwise to claim that relativistic morality is possible, let alone essential (as you claim), without defining it.  Relativism is a principle firstly of denial - that there is no one truth.  When dealing with a negative mandate it is impossible to discern the point at which negativity is to stop.  Morality concerns itself by definition with principles.  There are no principles in relativism.  In a world of relativistic morality, where A kills B, C may not object, for he must concede that if to A killing B is morally acceptable, then A has committed no moral wrong (which of course is the crux of the gravamen of murder), despite his own feelings on the matter.  It goes without saying that this is the extreme example, but any attempt to tame the scenario yields a result different in degree and not kind.  In other words, relativistic morality is by definition contradictory and an absurdity.

(I will concede that intellectually I have no respect for relativism and relativists.)

Like I said, I will not go into the Abraham and Isaac story.  The truth behind the story is given in the Bible.  If a self-evident explanation will not prevent your twisting and manipulating the story, what good could a third party explanation do?  I suggest you re-read the story and understand its proper significance before you throw around such a view of the story as truth.  Further, I would (in all seriousness) recommend, if you are particularly taken by that incident (and, actually, even if you are not), that you consider Kierkegaard's views on the subject in Fear and Trembling.  And again, I will not address your considering the OT/NT 'Gods' to be different.  From a literary perspective it is easy to see that God in the OT acts different to God in the NT - but also from a literary perspective it is beyond the trite to note that 'they' are the same God.  Again, from a literary perspective, there is this not-so-small event at the very beginning of the NT which answers more than just the question of why God seems different from one Testament to the next.

It is unwise to throw around claims and statements without justifications and supporting reasoning.  That is all that I shall say about the above.

In contrast to your final claim, however, I think you will find that religious morality is founded not upon no determining moral principle, but is instead founded upon transcendental truth.  Far from there being no explanation as to why certain acts may be morally proscribed, religion provides the very reason why they are proscribed - because of their authority being derived from a being transcending humankind. 

If there is a God, who is man to argue with what He proclaims to be right?

If there is a God, who is man to tell Him that He is unreasonable?

That is the inescapably unique dimension to which religious morality has recourse.

[pianistimo]

according to the bible - morality is NOT relative.  it is not even a theory.  it is, as was pointed out accurately - a decision of a Potentate.  we would not even know what good and evil was if it weren't for God.  if people didn't know killing was wrong - they would be just like the animals.  but, it is interesting that the catholic faith under pope john-paul the II embraced evolution!  it combined a lie with a truth and made it 'relativistic' doctrine.  either you believe the bible or you don't.  you either believe it is the TRUTH and you don't change it - or you say it isn't the truth and go with the Illuminati.

www.cuttingedge.org/News/n2029.cfm
www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

i realize that i should bow out now before others say that you can find natural laws to govern morality.  if so, where are they?  what has stopped the inquisition, the complicity of the catholic bishop that sold poisonous gas to aushwitz, and the coming NEW WORLD ORDER that the catholic church has in mind.  it is an order to combine the natural political machinations with their own agenda.  it is anti-christ - and you will not see 'morality' in the way we see it.  rather 'beheadings' are foretold in revelations for those that will not accept the mark of the beast, the number of his name (often written in latin = numbers), and will be able to neither buy or sell without worship and useage of a prescribed manner of government.

don't look to the future to bring a lot of light on morality.  this world is going down.

[Mozartian]

the catholic church is the only church that i know of that condemns sexuality as immoral and beautifies virginity.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/504104.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/506200.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/315203.htm

[mike_lang]

the catholic church is the only church that i know of that condemns sexuality as immoral and beautifies virginity. 

This is not true - John Paul II wrote a fantastic book on human sexuality and the sanctity of it entitled "Theology of the Body."  While the Church "beautifies virginity", it is more so that it promotes chastity.  While virginity is a beautiful thing for some few who are called to it, everyone is called to be chaste.  This does not mean that no one can have sex; it only means that sex is limited to the confines of marriage.  Everything that God created is good, when used according to its nature.  Sexuality cannot be immoral in and of itself and is not purported to be so by the Catholic Church.

Best,
Michael

[pianistimo]

so why does the church not allow the priesthood to marry.  to remain celibate.  it is not a prescription of the bible.  it is one sentence of paul explaining his own views on what he personally wanted for his life.  not a prescription for the entire church.  in fact, he says - if any man cannot contain himself - he should marry.  so why don't they let priests marry.  it has become a convolution of sexual immorality in the catholic church itself.  and the popes cover it up by not excommunicating the bishops in charge and some that do it.

also, there is a wide variety of doctrinal explainations.  this is cold/hot version.  either you are a Christian or you are dancing with demons.  it has long been known that the catholic church is a place where the illuminati have entered (and been there for 200 years) so the influence is to combine not only the 'dagon' priesthood (of babylon - with the fish head cap) but also the sign of the devil on the popes robes (sea shells of which the birth of the godess venus arises).  many of the symbols - including the bent crucifix are actually symbols of satanism and were used in the middle ages by people who worked black magic (if you follow the history of the bent crucifix) as it represented anti-christ. 

you would be surprised if you knew what the catholic church has been working on internationally as well.  very much involved in politics.  what other church is allowed this priviledge?  vatican city is a city/state unto itself.  a sort of ***'s abode. since we know that jerusalem is the city of God.  it is even on seven hills - which revelations says is where the *** sits.

[maul]

pianistimo do you ever feel like your brain is going to ooze out of your ear when you lay down on your side?

[mike_lang]

so why does the church not allow the priesthood to marry.  to remain celibate.

The Bride of the priest is the Church, just as the bride of a layman is a woman.  In order to be in better union with his Bride, he is expected to remain faithful to Her.

Just as the Church is Christ's Bride, the Church is the Bride of the priests who enter into the priesthood of the High Priest Himself.  It is considered to be as intimate as head and body; Christ is the head and the Church is the Body.

[sarahlein]

Just some observations (from an independed onlooker)

Pianistimo:

you would be surprised if you knew what the catholic church has been working on internationally as well.  very much involved in politics.  what other church is allowed this priviledge?

er..you be surprised that the catholic church has not been the only branch of Christianity that has/is involved into politics! So please, don't be so quick to point a finger!

Pianistimo:

i realize that i should bow out now before others say that you can find natural laws to govern morality.  if so, where are they?  what has stopped the inquisition, the complicity of the catholic bishop that sold poisonous gas to aushwitz, and the coming NEW WORLD ORDER that the catholic church has in mind.

The examples you mention do no fit, choose other if you want to point out that natural laws do not exist which govern morality. I'm not saying that thay exist or don't exist what I'm saying is if you're trying to make a point don't use examples of people or even groups of people that openly proclaim that they are governed by a different set of laws-their religious laws.

michael_langlois :

The Bride of the priest is the Church

Then according to this the apostle Peter (and other apostles) failed since he was married!

[thalbergmad]

pianistimo do you ever feel like your brain is going to ooze out of your ear when you lay down on your side?

That happens when she goes to the toilet.

Thal

[pianistimo]

oh.  thanks agin thalbergmad.  thank you very much.  well.  i shall now go and delete my ramblings and save them for some other venting.  saralein,  point well taken.  it's just that i was pointing out the unusal spot that the catholic faith has in the news that other churches do not.

the BRIDE is the ENTIRE church.  i can find some scriptures to back that one up.  rev. 22:14 'blessed are those who wash their robes (all CHRISTIANS), that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city...and the Spirit and the bride say come, 'Come.'  and let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.  i testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book:  if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away fromt he words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.'

there is another scripture which calls Christians a 'royal priesthood.'  we may not wear robes to distinguish ourselves, or look pious, but we are nonetheless no better or worse than each other.  there is no mention in the bible of preserving saints so that they can be worshipped or venerated.  that is why moses body went missing.  God didn't want the israelites worshipping it.  relics and such are also a no no.  why else would God not allow the ark to be found down to this very day?  because it is God's - but NOT GOD himself.  we have human thinking minds and often elevate things and saints tot he same level as God himself (by verbally saying MAry's name as often or more often that Jesus Christ's - we are elevating her over him.  Christ said himself - 'who are my parents and my brothers and sisters? - those who do the will of God.')  He did not venerate even His own mother but admonished John to take care of her after His death.

[mike_lang]

it's just that i was pointing out the unusal spot that the catholic faith has in the news that other churches do not.

the BRIDE is the ENTIRE church. 

With regard to these two points:

Of course the Catholic faith is in the news more; it is the largest percentage of Christians, which together are the largest world religion.

Secondly, yes, the Bride is the entire Church.  The Church includes all who have been baptized in Christ.  I do not refute that point.

Best,
Michael

[steinwaybaby]

thank you Siberian Husky for trying to get it back on track.  i didn't want to hear just the christians views but everyones.

steinwaybaby

[prometheus]

Utilitarianism is a normative moral conception in that it will prescribe rules and will explain why those rules are rules, but it is not sufficient in itself to ascribe to those rules any 'moral' dimension beyond their end result.  Conversely, utilitarianism derives its value from its end results. 

There is nothing more you can ask. It would be silly to think that morality exists outside humans and human society.

It is not the be-all-and-end-all that many of its blind followers claim it to be.

You are talking about religion?

Utilitarianism, of course, not only permits, but advocates and condones

Is this a joke? Do you know why the romans had a colesseum?

In contrast to your final claim, however, I think you will find that religious morality is founded not upon no determining moral principle, but is instead founded upon transcendental truth.

And that only leads to bigotry.

Far from there being no explanation as to why certain acts may be morally proscribed, religion provides the very reason why they are proscribed - because of their authority being derived from a being transcending humankind. 

If there is a God, who is man to argue with what He proclaims to be right?

If there is a God, who is man to tell Him that He is unreasonable?

That's the problem. Your arguments start with 'if' and give all power to authority. And authority is the reason why the christians were fed to the lions in the colesseum.

That is the inescapably unique dimension to which religious morality has recourse.

It is a fallacy. You can't argue for it. Only god can and she doesn't. So it has very little dimensions.

Also, history proves the immorality of monotheistic morality. Or you can also look at Bush and 'pro-life' in the US.

[steinwaybaby]

pres. bush is not pro-life.....

[prometheus]

I didn't say he was and I used 'pro-life' in quotes. Just as 'war on terror' should always be used in quotes.

[steinwaybaby]

ok sry...

[prometheus]

Just to clear it up. But do you know if he calls himself 'pro-life'?

[steinwaybaby]

yes, he says he is.

[prometheus]

I just saw this: https://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=4430459531638940044

The first part is about 'pro-life'.

[pianistimo]

funny, but hardly true.  i'd say that conservatives take care of their children just as well as liberals.  after all, if liberals didn't let them even get born - how good of care is that?  just turning the tables.

here in pa - there are a lot of what you would call conservatives --but they are extremely involved (many stay at home moms) with their preschoolers (and yes, they go to preschool.  mine did.  no problem with that!  what is this guys' problem?)  they wait at the busstops before and after school.  help at the school.  they are very involved in parent/teacher stuff.  i'd say that if you compared pennsylvania with california (which is mostly a liberal state) - you would find - on the whole a LOT less latchkey kids.  i'm not joking...as i used to live in california and MY HOUSE was the neighborhood babysitting house.  noone paid me.  probably no parents even cared to find out or know what their kids did after school until they came home.  i would literally feed snacks to 3-4 extra kids and keep an eye inside and outside the house - especially if there were strange people around and  i'd bring them inside if there was an animal loose (dog or coyote).  etc.  now, i'm no special mom - because everyone is like that on my block here in pennsylvania.  what is difference?

the difference is that money isn't the issue in families here.  some decide they don't need a fancy car or the latest this and that - and spend it on their family.  woah.  that's a really novel idea!  they do with less and end up having more family time.  everyone's kids are at the park with their parents when dad gets home.  try to find that in california!  i'm not saying there aren't a few parents who do it - but here the parks are cROWDED full after work.  the guys don't say - 'well, my job is done.  i made the kid - but now i'll go get drunk.'  there's not a lot of tolerance here for deadbeats.  there's a lot of really great dad's here - which make for really strong families. 

oh.  and ps.  i don't think that guy was particularly attractive - so why is he saying that conservative women aren't attractive?  he certainly doesn't look like he draws any kind of a woman at all by the way he talks and gestures.  i think attractiveness is a sort of way for guys/girls to judge others.  by their looks.  this is also a typical california attitude.  if they don't look good or a certain way.  you can pass up a lot of just good friendships on that basis.  i would say that if i married the first few people i dated - the guy would be stuck on himself and have left after the first six months.  my husband isn't a pin-up model - but he's stuck by me.  i think he's handsome and that's all that matters.  and, i think the part that i really love is that he is faithful and kind and sweet.  character is a big part of attraction.  who wants a good looking b* or deadbeat looker guy.  i wouldn't fall for that past 18 years of age.

[prometheus]

That link to that stand up comedian was for fun of course. I don't remember exactly what he says. But I think he first points out inconsistency in the argument made by some 'pro-life' people. And then he goes off on a tangent trying to milk as much jokes out of it.

[pianistimo]

in the most serious sense - God is only one truly pro-life.  He can ressurrect us!

[ada]

why these naff euphemisms and code-words?

Pro-life is anti-abortion.

War on Terror is war against Islam.

It was George Orwell who said in 1984 that by controlling language we can control thought.

[johnny-boy]

I'm with you Ada. Let's call it what it is.

Pro-choice is murder.

John

[ada]

All this double speak is confusing me. Is pro-choice pro-or anti-abortion? Why can't you just keep language clear and to the point? You Americans butcher the english language.

And no, johny boy, I'm not getting drawn into a debate about abortion.

[ada]

ah, ok, obviously pro-choice is code for pro-abortion. Pro-choice is just as stupid a term as pro-life.

And if you insist on calling abortion murder you're failing to understand the nuances of written english. Or, you understand them very well and are exploiting them for political gain and mangling the language in the process.

What's wrong with saying "I disagree with abortion on demand" or "I agree with it"?

Why not cut to the chase?

The other day I heard smacking a child described as "family admistered behavioural modification". I mean, give me a break.

I feel strongly about this because I spend a good portion of my life trying to beat other people's convoluted double speak into something coherent.

[johnny-boy]

All this double speak is confusing me. Is pro-choice pro-or anti-abortion? Why can't you just keep language clear and to the point? You Americans butcher the english language.

And no, johny boy, I'm not getting drawn into a debate about abortion.

Pro-choice is the camp that believe a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy if she so chooses. Which, of course, would be murder.

There's really no debate here. One either believes in murder or not.

John

[johnny-boy]

What's wrong with saying "I disagree with abortion on demand" or "I agree with it"?-ada

Okay, you're absolutely correct. "I disagree with murder on demand".

John

[ada]

ok darls if we're going to get stuck on definitions let's settle this the only possible way: with the good old fashioned dictionary.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being by an act done with intention to kill ... to kill or slaughter inhumanely".

Abortion is: "the expulsion or removal of a human foetus before it is viable".

Now on the basis of these definitions and our respective legislatures let's you and our enthralled audience out in PF land make up their own minds 

[ramseytheii]

Why are we getting on this topic that will never be agreed by anyone, ever? 

Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in a case called Lawrence & Garner v. Texas in favor of Lawrence & Garner.  They were two men caught in an indecent posture (to be delicate) by Texas police in the privacy of their own home.  They were arrested as such behavior was prohibited by Texas law.

The Supreme Court however ruled that law to be unconstitutional, and it was struck down.  This law was based above all in Judeo-Christian religion, which says among other things that man shall not lie with man.  The interesting thing about the Supreme Court's ruling, is that essentially they declared a law cannot be primarily based on morality, without the added effect of protecting other citizens.  This was a law that one type of religion forced on the people at large, and it was deemed unconstitutional, since it did not serve to protect anyone in any way.  This means that the ruling is challenging all laws based primarily in morality, a religious concept.

When we consider the case of abortion (why am I even bothering?!), think first that the unborn child is not a citizen by any stretch of the imagination.  They don't pay taxes, they can't join the army, they can't drive, they don't get social security, they don't even have a birth certificate.  They are not legal people.  Any law against abortion therefore, according to the above logic, cannot be considered constitutional, because it is a law based in religious morality, that does not affect other citizens.

No matter how much a person believes in their religion, I think it is absolutely wrong to try and force it on others.  If Evangelical Christians had their way in a large portion of Amerika, even Catholics would be expelled or forced to convert.  In trying to force their morality on others through control of the government, they deny the essential teaching of Scriptures that a Christian must bear the cross; they cast off the cross in contempt, and take up instead the sin of pride.  Rather anyone in faith should seek to set an example, and educate those around them, rather than enforcing their own laws on the mass of people.

Walter Ramsey

[leahcim]

This means that the ruling is challenging all laws based primarily in morality, a religious concept.

I'm not that convinced by that. Morality isn't a religious concept.

It's much easier [as evident by some posters posting scripture] to get religious folks to do stuff if they believe it's something to do with a big external force like a God they believe is real. Hence if you have a morality to push those big scary notions to push it worked years ago, and for some today.

Similary to the "don't eat stuff you've dropped on the floor you'll get germs" today, which in the old testament because it's linked to God and unholyness and that garbage, some mistake the good advice of the time [albeit often outdated now] as being secondary to the blather about God used to justify / enforce it. Years later you get people, even those who know about germs and so on, still believing some guy with a beard doesn't want you to eat a particular thing or shave etc and that it's unholy or sinful if you do. Laughable really, but it keeps them in check. You keep intelligent people in check by making them believe they came to the conclusion you wanted them to, e.g give them newspapers with same news but with better grammar and a more difficult crossword and they'll be "informed" You keep religious people in check by accepting their religion and using the open ended nature "Thou can kill some of the people some of the time if you like" to your advantage.

It's a bit like watching the "Don't smoke" advert with Superman and thinking that  superman really exists and he decided that smoking was bad and gets angry if you do it and is flying around looking <scans skies..oooh scary eh? >. Rather than the fact that smoking kills and it's just a well known character used to get the message across to kids.

Religion is only an outdated vehicle for a morality. Albeit one where the myth has grown bigger than the morality and so people think that God decided some things are right and wrong and wrote a book. But the morality isn't religious per se. It's what a bunch of folk 2000-odd years ago thought up, with no doubt agreement and differences of opinon. No different from the legislation we have now, which some agree with and some don't. The difference of course is that the consequences of breaking the legislation, even if you don't believe are often real.

[e60m5]

A short note to Prometheus, as I do not intend to quote his post quoting my own:

Your statement that 'It would be silly to think that morality exists outside humans and human society' is nothing more than your opinion, and I think it further very unwise for you to make such a categorical claim in light of the many great thinkers of this world, of a far greater intellect than you and I, whose beliefs you dismiss as 'silly'.  I could quite rightly question who you think you are to make such an arrogant claim, but I think that any such time spent in that respect would be time wasted in an absolutely pointless vein.

My given example in relation to Christians being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum is not a joke.  Rather, it is your severely limited and lacking understanding of utilitarianism which may be indicative of the real joke.  I suggest reading into the concept and doing some of your own research into understanding its true nature before attempting to invoke it in an attempt at debate with somebody who, for all you know, could be much better versed in the subject than you are.

It is not a joke, moreover, because it is the truth; and I shall spell it out to you simply.  At the core of utilitarianism is the simple precept that those acts which provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people are those acts which are approved by the utilitarian standard.  It would surprise me not if your understanding of the term 'utilitarianism' ended here.  It is a well known and classical objection to utilitarianism that if the set of those approving and deriving pleasure from a certain act, no matter how repulsive and abysmal it may be when viewed through the lens of some other moral perspective, increases, even within finite constraints (viz. not 'ad infinitum'), the act will be condoned by the utilitarian mind as the pleasure derived from those growing numbers dwarfs the suffering of the comparatively few.  However, I need not speak more about this one example.  Other writers of a far greater intellectual acumen than myself have considered it in depth.  So turn to them if you wish to contest this claim (because you will fail).  Your ignorance of this classical fault of utilitarianism speaks more about your awareness of the subject than your words ever could.

Your claim, further, that religious morality 'only leads to bigotry' is so imbued with idiocy and nescience that it beggars belief when viewed in the context of your earlier posts - I was under the impression that you were genuinely interested in intellectual discourse on the matter, but now I am in no doubts as to your real aims. 

I framed my closing points as 'if... then' statements to strip those points of their controversial nature in the realm of evidential proof and reality.  This is not the place to argue for or against the truth of a deity or of any religion in particular.  Your attempting to attack these statements consequent upon said phraseology reveals that you are not yet experienced enough with dialectic and exposition to pick up on such subtleties .  I will therefore not address this subject, as it is patently clear to all involved that, as said above, this is not the time nor place for such discussion.

And finally, because it has become clear to all that you are not here for 'intellectual discussion' as you are so set in asserting your groundless belief (and I choose my words carefully here; consider this a pointer to the novice) that religious morality is a 'fallacy' and that religion is a sack of lies, etc, etc, I will refrain from discussion with you beyond this post in relation to any and all of the above.  You evidently think you are enlightened to the point where you can dismiss minds such as Newton, Aquinas and Kierkegaard as ignorant, so who am I, a mere 19 year old law student, to disagree with you?  To paraphrase and adapt a well-known line from the Bible - if you do not consider such luminaries to be worthy of your consideration, why would I be under the illusion that you would ever consider my own words and their consequences? 

But, I hope that one day you will change, and realise that it is nothing but foolish to dismiss without consideration the intellectual possibilities arising from those who do not share your close-minded beliefs.  Every person aiming to widen their understanding of the world and its phenomena should not limit themselves to arguments and discussions along the lines of their own beliefs, but should question their own beliefs in the light of those who have spoken out against them.   For example, I am a Christian; and yet I would be all the less wise for it were I to accept my faith blindly without considering the words and implications of others without my faith.  Far from that, however, I seek constantly to evaluate my faith through the lens of perspectives far different to mine, and in doing so inevitably encounter the views and arguments of those most vehemently opposed to my own beliefs.  However, your answers to me indicate that, unfortunately, you do not go so far with respect to your own beliefs.  You are clinging onto your faith in the falsity of religion, and it is shutting you off from learning much.  I only hope that one day you may realise that such a perspective is limiting and not liberating, and that we may have open-minded discussion in the future.

PS.  I will not even begin to address the claim you have made in relation to history proving the alleged immorality of monotheistic morality.  I cannot believe you made such a claim seriously (and yet I may be according you too much even so). 

PPS.  To the person who quoted Lawrence v Texas, a case which provides an alternative perspective in relation to an analogous (allowing for considerations of degree) situation is that of R v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212, wherein the House of Lords ruled (3-2) in favour of outlawing morally objectionable sexual conduct - without invoking the tenets of religion.  (I am not saying that I support the decision nor agree with its reasoning, as will have been evident from my posts in this context - but it is an interesting and valuable contrast to make nevertheless.)

[prometheus]

Your statement that 'It would be silly to think that morality exists outside humans and human society' is nothing more than your opinion, and I think it further very unwise for you to make such a categorical claim in light of the many great thinkers of this world, of a far greater intellect than you and I, whose beliefs you dismiss as 'silly'.

How can it be that morality for humans exists outside humans or human society? The only way is for god to exist. Even if god does exist I still think god as a creator of mankind and as a person laying down morality for us is silly. Not to forget that this contradicts observation.

Many great thinkers may disagree but that is meaningless. Plato was a great intellect but most of the things he said we know know are silly.

My given example in relation to Christians being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum is not a joke.  Rather, it is your severely limited and lacking understanding of utilitarianism which may be indicative of the real joke.

This is just getting outrageous. The only reason why you think this example proves that utilitarianism is because you think that the giving several people a night of entertainment outweights the life of one person. Either you really think this, which would be worrying, or you just assume this opinion to try and show utilitarianism produces the wrong result, which would be mean.

The opposite is true. Utilitarianism is the opposite of egoism. It would be egoistical to kill one person for the sake of the others because it hurts the common good. In Utilitarianism the christians thrown to the lions are also part of the common good. This means that you either have a total lack of understanding about utilitarianism or you really think the common good is improved eventhough people are killed.

If we analyse history deeper we will see that the people in Rome were hard to control for the rulers. This means that gladiators and violent entertainment were a way to control the people. This is bad for the common good as well since oppression of people is wrong according to utilitarianism.

I suggest reading into the concept and doing some of your own research into understanding its true nature before attempting to invoke it in an attempt at debate with somebody who, for all you know, could be much better versed in the subject than you are.

Good call. Do that.

It is a well known and classical objection to utilitarianism...

It's a well know objection to a severe straw man of utilitarianism. And it is a very old one. Not many people still dare to use it today.

Your claim, further, that religious morality 'only leads to bigotry' is so imbued with idiocy and nescience that it beggars belief when viewed in the context of your earlier posts - I was under the impression that you were genuinely interested in intellectual discourse on the matter, but now I am in no doubts as to your real aims. 

Maybe you didn't understand why I said this, because I see no trace left of my actual objection to monotheistic morality. The problem is that, by definition, monotheism has one truth. If only one think is true then you are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. There is no room for black or white, discussion or arguing. Actually, if you really believe this then you don't want to hear my opinion. You want gods transcendental truth, which I obviously can't provide. So why do you argue with me? The only reason you have to do so is to lecture me, to try to 'win' the debate, etc etc.

So the idea of one universal truth created by god can be a very dangerous one, even if it is true. So, yes. It does have a lot of potential for bigotry.

This is not the place to argue for or against the truth of a deity or of any religion in particular.

Then where do we do this? Surely there are many things that flow from religion that need to be argued against.

Your attempting to attack these statements consequent upon said phraseology reveals that you are not yet experienced enough with dialectic and exposition to pick up on such subtleties .  I will therefore not address this subject, as it is patently clear to all involved that, as said above, this is not the time nor place for such discussion.

Is this part of gods trancendental truth? Maybe I can't pick up the subtleties because english is not my first language.

And finally, because it has become clear to all that you are not here for 'intellectual discussion'...

According to your own views you also can't be interested in this.

...as you are so set in asserting your groundless belief that religious morality is a 'fallacy' and that religion is a sack of lies, etc, etc, I will refrain from discussion with you beyond this post in relation to any and all of the above.

Why would you do this?

You evidently think you are enlightened to the point where you can dismiss minds such as Newton, Aquinas and Kierkegaard as ignorant, so who am I, a mere 19 year old law student, to disagree with you?

What kind of weak argument is this? For example, all the things I said here people like Russell, Dawkins and Chomsky, among others, would argee with. Does that mean that either Newton, Aquinas and Kierkegaard or Russell, Dawkins and Chomsky are dimwits?

Really, clearly this is a fallacy.

But, I hope that one day you will change, and realise that it is nothing but foolish to dismiss without consideration the intellectual possibilities arising from those who do not share your close-minded beliefs.

Are you now trying to claim that you are open to the opinions of others, enlightened, and open to consider intellectual possibilities? Maybe you should reread the last bit of your previous message. Because that shows the true nature of your actual beliefs. Attacking mine is easy. But you can't make any intellectual argument for the things you said there.

For example, I am a Christian; and yet I would be all the less wise for it were I to accept my faith blindly without considering the words and implications of others without my faith.

I have never heard of such a thing. How does this work? Do you mean you came to your religious view through looking at the world and talking with those that are not religious?  If so that would be both unique and amazing.

However, your answers to me indicate that, unfortunately, you do not go so far with respect to your own beliefs.

I don't have any beliefs.


Really, I am getting a bit sick of this whole point that you are the enlightened person and that thus I am the primitive barbarian. There will never be anything enlightened or reasonable about christianity.

You are clinging onto your faith in the falsity of religion,

I don't know if god exists or not because I don't know what god is. So I can't know what position I should take.

As for the effects of religion. Obviously they are very very bad. And obviously all religious morality is taboo morality and all dogma. I don't need to know if it is false or not to know it is immoral.

I will not even begin to address the claim you have made in relation to history proving the alleged immorality of monotheistic morality.  I cannot believe you made such a claim seriously. 

Amazing claim. I mean, I could now answer with something like: "So does that mean you have never seen the cover of a history book?" but really that would be too lame. What can I say?

[johnny-boy]

ok darls if we're going to get stuck on definitions let's settle this the only possible way: with the good old fashioned dictionary.

According to the Macquarie Dictionary murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being by an act done with intention to kill ... to kill or slaughter inhumanely".

Abortion is: "the expulsion or removal of a human fetus before it is viable".

Now on the basis of these definitions and our respective legislatures let's you and our enthralled audience out in PF land make up their own minds 

Merriam-Webster:
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation

We all know that the “human fetus” if not murdered, will become a full-fledged person.
Actually it’s premeditated murder - murder in the first degree.

Abortion is: "the expulsion or removal of a human fetus before it is viable". - Downplaying the act of abortion using less offensive words may help the murderer deal with his/her guilt, but it’s still cold-blooded murder.

I guess it's better to murder the child than have the parents inconvenienced with the responsibilities that come with parenthood.

John

[prometheus]

Nature, or god, murders 85% of all humans before they are born.