Which came first? Civilization or Religion?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Insinuating that pointing out the 'imperfections' is wrong is absolutely absurd.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually, Christian Reconstructionists call for a return to literal OT law, including stoning.

I wonder how many Christians [other than the Reconstructionists] would actually like to live in that society.

That would play out like a horror movie.

I doubt that even most of the Reconstructionists would once they were in it. Of course, they're imagining it from the fantasy perspective of being the ruling class.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Tangerine

They've been posted, printed in gov't buildings all over the nation. None other have, that I've seen.

Pretty much prima facie evidence that they have been the moral code of the U.S. for quite a while. At least until recently. Which connects with the decay of this society.

I stated a number of times they were imperfect, yet workable.

All I see from you two is continued regurgitation of the imperfections.

Amusing, but losing my interest-probably others as well- so unless you can come up with a variation to the theme, I will retire from this thread...G'nite.

OK, so let's go with the 10 Commandments. Let's go through them one-by-one. Tell us which, in your opinion, used to be obeyed by the vast majority and which are no longer obeyed by the vast majority?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Not when those imperfections are acknowledged and then continued non-stop adding nothing more to the thread.

Now that is absurd...

a reply to: Tangerine

No thanks. They are pretty obvious, as far as relative worth is concerned, and stand on their own.

I haven't seen an alternate/improved version from you two characters, whatsoever.

Just pointing out weaknesses or archaic enforcement mechanisms. I see the value they have brought to mankind, that they haven't been even matched, never mind improved upon, by any religion, or group including the secular humanists.
Enforcement is long gone. Even basic instruction by parents is fast fading into the past.

Even with a new, improved, up-to-date moral code, having it understood, agreed upon in sufficient numbers to affect the downward spiral that is this society is highly unlikely.

This is all 'academic'. Too late.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Not when those imperfections are acknowledged

Did you acknowledge you're failing to follow the very moral code you posit everyone is following? Must have missed that.

No thanks. They are pretty obvious

*shakes head* What did you tell me earlier? Something about a hearty laugh? heh...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Getting a bit desperate aren't we? I'm sure you've followed your 'unstated' moral code to perfection as well?

Yawn.

a reply to: nwtrucker

that they haven't been even matched, never mind improved upon, by any religion, or group including the secular humanists.

We could give many. I already gave one. The moral philosophy from the Jainists is not only superior to the 10 Commandments, it came before it. So the 10 Commandments was a downgrade in moral thought if you want to compare.

Are you not familiar with the philosophers? That was my focus in school. There is lots of moral thought much more sophisticated and applicable to the modern world from them than those Commandments [or anything in scripture]. Your lack of being educated on the matter doesn't mean there isn't examples proving you wrong.

Even if my personal philosophy was simply "Be a nice person" that would far surpass the 10 Commandments. How is forcing people to believe in a particular religious god moral? Commanding they don't make visual images in the likeness of the divine, and they don't take the Lord's name in vain. How the Hell is that crucial for the health of society? Don't be envious of your neighbors possessions? That may or may not be a bad thing... would wholly depend on the circumstances. Don't work on a particular day of the week? Or keep that day holy in general?? Lol okay. The only way those things would be deemed moral is if you were a believer in that dogma to begin with. Half of the 10 COMMANDMENTS aren't applicable to non-religious people, nor are they followed by non-religious people as a 'moral code'.

Someone that adopts the Golden Rule as their personal 'moral code' is way above someone who'd be following those Commandments. To remind you... the Golden Rule preceded The Bible.

It's hilarious how you in one breath acknowledge how there are these imperfections, and that you don't even follow all of them, and then in another breath you say there is nothing better and we all are essentially following them.

a reply to: nwtrucker

As I said not following that first Commandment isn't even an option. You have to or you're utterly failing to follow it.

Also what do you believe the consequence for not following the 10 Commandments should be?? How should you be punished?

In Biblical times many of those would have gotten you killed if you violated them.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Well, surely you violate being a "nice" person. So there goes that one down Mr. Crapper's trash bin...
I ask you, yet, again, what is your moral code? What do you apply in your life? Other than dumping on moral codes that you don't agree with, that is?

I begin to question your I.Q. , no,not your indoctrination/education level, your ability for objective analysis.

Was the western civilization built upon the Golden Rule? Vague, pedantic philosophic articulations buried in some moth-ridden tome? I think not.

Prima facie evidence is rather conclusive, despite your protestations. Methinks your not a very happy man. Bitter is more likely.

Oh yes "Nice". etymology of, " Foolish, stupid, senseless, poor, needy, stupid....o/o nescius ignorant....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, surely you violate being a "nice" person. So there goes that one down Mr.

I said 'if'. I was giving an example. Obviously.

I ask you, yet, again, what is your moral code? What do you apply in your life?

I already answered this. Go reread my posts.

Other than dumping on moral codes that you don't agree with, that is?

'Dumping' on moral codes I don't agree with is very pertinent to the topic matter. Sorry opposing viewpoints are unworthy of your time and consideration.

your ability for objective analysis.

Says the person who just refused to objectively analyze Tangerine's request.

Methinks your not a very happy man.

I truly don't care if you think that.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

a reply to: nwtrucker

spirituality came first, then civilization, then religion with religion almost in response to the needs of civilization.

There is a huge difference between spirituality and religion. Without religion, civilization would not last long.

a reply to: tadaman

That's not true for every nation not based around religion but still exists like Sweden where the majority are atheists.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: nwtrucker

spirituality came first, then civilization, then religion with religion almost in response to the needs of civilization.

There is a huge difference between spirituality and religion. Without religion, civilization would not lat long.

I don't think religion is necessary to maintain a civilization. A shared code is necessary. It need not be in the form of religion.

a reply to: Tangerine

Actually, I tend to agree with that statement. It isn't a given that Religion needs to be the source of a moral code in the future.

Merely, that it was a significant conduit in the past.

I don't think religion is necessary to maintain a civilization. A shared code is necessary. It need not be in the form of religion.

True. Why not just let empathy be our moral code since most social creatures have it? That would be a common ground for Atheists, the spiritual, and the (non-extremist) religious.

originally posted by: arpgme

I don't think religion is necessary to maintain a civilization. A shared code is necessary. It need not be in the form of religion.

True. Why not just let empathy be our moral code since most social creatures have it? That would be a common ground for Atheists, the spiritual, and the (non-extremist) religious.

Sounds good to me.

a reply to: arpgme

The nation of Sweden, like all, have been built up over thousands of years by thousands of influences....They were not hunter gatherers one moment and then suddenly they became Swedish.

We are talking primordial birth of things. Civilization was based off the organizational hierarchy of religion, or rather, RELIGION was developed BY civilization to better organize larger groups and maintain order.

In ancient times we worshiped fertility idols that centered around a mothers ability to give birth.... THEN when large groups built the first city states and kingdoms, worship centered around a male God king in most cases- A male supreme God that from his own flesh birthed humanity, much like Adam in the judeo-christian version whose rib birthed the female component to our species.

The change in focus of worship coincides exactly with the emergence of civilization and the decline in hunter gatherer nomadic life styles.

Spirituality in general is just used in communication between people when shared. Spirituality as a whole is conducive towards complex or simple abstract ideas. Spirituality can be used to communicate any idea about anything. Spirituality is otherwise entirely personal and internal.

Religion is a structured form for communication using spirituality as an external point of focus for the exchange and development of specific theories of everything.


Spirituality is a range of thought when shared though it is almost wholly a self experienced reality.

Religion is a tool that uses spirituality to complete the function assigned to it within an established reality.

a reply to: tadaman

That's interesting and makes sense to me but that wasn't what I was talking about. You said civilization would not "last" without religion but that's not true because Sweden is still existing. Sure, Sweden has many influences including some religious but now that it is secular (without religious ruling) it still "lasts".