Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Editing the word of god

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Is it ok to change common belief and moral systems to fit your own system of belief.

(Like changing the bible, removing parts that dont agree with what you believe)

Is it okay to simply create your own version of existing religions and philosophies so that they truly represent what you want from that religion or philosophy.




posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Well, sorry, but I have to dissagree. If there is a God (which I believe) then I'm sure he gave us rules to follow, not to bend.........



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 07:47 PM
link   
My impression is that all religions taken from the perspective of there general message say very much the same thing. A good example is when comparing the
ten commandments to the Negative Confession (this with respect to the Egyptian book of the Dead)

alexm.here.ru...



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Sure, its OK, no one is gong to shoot you for it.
If you change a religion to suit yourself, then you are really creating your own religion. Go ahead, plenty of others have done it in the past.

However creating your own religion, like writing a science fiction book does not necessrily mean it has any reality outside of the page its on.

You are just creating fiction, or creating rules to live by, if that is your aim then a pik-n-mix approach works fine.

Here's one...

"You shall not steal, except for music off the internet"
"You shall not commit adultary, but looking at porn is OK"
"You shall not lie, unless you are the president"

So making your own rules up is entirely acceptable, just don't expect others ot respect them or follow them.



Originally posted by arcana imperii

Is it ok to change common belief and moral systems to fit your own system of belief.

(Like changing the bible, removing parts that dont agree with what you believe)

Is it okay to simply create your own version of existing religions and philosophies so that they truly represent what you want from that religion or philosophy.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:03 PM
link   
What If a religion preaches love and peace but a part of there holy book preaches intolerance.
What if a religion is based on helping others and a signal prophet of that faith suggested genocide.

What if theres evidence that the religion has already been corrupted and changed.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:04 PM
link   
It doesn't matter...that's what I did, I'm not "Christian" though I think the Bible is full of valuable lessons.

Morality is Universal, and Morality is Devine.

It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are responsible and wise.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I would say that in most part its either your, or others, faulty interpretation of that religion. So does the "love and peace" example REALLY say just that, or are there occasions when what you have termed "intolerance" is appropriate.

You need to check that:
A) you have a good, or correct understanding of that belief system to start off with.
B) Someone else, whom you are debating with, knows what the heck they are saying.
C)That you have got your facts correct (this is really A above.)


Originally posted by arcana imperii

What If a religion preaches love and peace but a part of there holy book preaches intolerance.
What if a religion is based on helping others and a signal prophet of that faith suggested genocide.

What if theres evidence that the religion has already been corrupted and changed.


[Edited on 10-7-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:14 PM
link   
But isnt morality it self relative. one person may believe something is amoral and the other may believe that its the most moral thing they know.

If a culture believes it moral to kill a specific race or religion. And you believe itss wrong then are you being amoral because you disagree with the moral beliefs every one else.

Whos moral directive is right and whos is wrong.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:20 PM
link   
But that my point isnt every thing relative whats right whats intolerant to one person is not to another.


Originally posted by Netchicken
I would say that in most part its either your, or others, faulty interpretation of that religion. So does the "love and peace" example REALLY say just that, or are there occasions when what you have termed "intolerance" is appropriate.

You need to check that:
A) you have a good, or correct understanding of that belief system to start off with.
B) Someone else, whom you are debating with, knows what the heck they are saying.
C)That you have got your facts correct (this is really A above.)





[Edited on 10-7-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Well, no.
Certinaly everything is relative in some respects, but there are values that transcend all belief systems. Basic laws of humanity, like murder is wrong.

As well, you are assuming that everyone is equal. What if morality was defined by a being that is greater than yourself, a being that has the ultimate insight as to the best way for you to live because he created you and has a plan for your life?

Now that kind of morality is superior to mere 'human' derived morality.


Originally posted by arcana imperii
But that my point isnt every thing relative whats right whats intolerant to one person is not to another.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Exactly NC, there are issues that in this society make us "conservative" or "liberal" and those could be considered Relative Morals.

But there are many Morals that are Universal, such as helping out your own (unless you're a loaner lol), and being honest.

No society on earth preaches to lie, though it may lie to you to make you think you're preaching the truth


Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Ok lets take murder. It can be said that if you kill some one in an act of protect your self, its amoral. Since you have no right to take a human life no matter the circumstances.
(Most would probably disagree with this, but thats not the point)

Is it right to kill some one so you can protect your freedoms. After all, liberty and freedoms are just ideas.

And what about war is it alright to fight and kill in a war.

In ceratin Islamic religions and governments its amoral for woman to show any amount of her skin to anyone but her family (by blood or marriage). to a person living in such circumstance its a basic moral value.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Great thread arcana. Seems like it may be taking a left turn away from the original premise, but I like where it's going. I've always tried to go down this road but always seem to philosophize myself into inescapable circles.


Can't wait to read some of the responses.

fixx



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Well let's go back to "Universal Morality" here...

Take murder for example, what is murder?

It's obviously not killing, because we kill all the time and attempt to justify it on multiple levels.

Murder is the unnecissary killing of someone useful to your "group".

To say the least.

Murder also it our current times can be expanded to simply, the unjustified killing of anyone.

But in the furthest past it would have been the more barbaric former.

What I mainly mean with "Universal Morality" though is hard to necissarily define, but I would say it's more along the lines of a general code of ethics, morals, but most importantly a form of respect that we show eachother.

Things that we all will say make us decent, if we look back on what we were before.

A Nazi concentration camp officer probably wouldn't have seen any problem with his job during the acts, but when he was forced to look at it from a "higher degree" of morality, he like anyone else, would feel ashamed.

Even if the slightest bit...or they are messed up in the head some way


Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Netchicken

Could you please complete your account of the Ten Commandments (Information Age/NWO Edition)?

I was finding it most entertaining...



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Basic laws of humanity, universal morality...

Are these just innate rules/beliefs that are encoded in our genes or are these ideas that we develop in order to maintain a peaceful society? Is it human nature to act in a manner that benefits the greater good for the greatest amount of people? Basically what I'd like to know is, where do these basic laws of morality come from?

fixx



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:12 PM
link   
But the thing is can we really say even what is higher morality?

Especially if we assume higher morality is decided by a higher being/god. What if god is a war like being who created the universe to perpetuate conflict. For all we know the god that created us wants us to kill each other. (I dont think so but you can never be sure)

We can never be sure that we understand god and what he/she stands for.



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
Well, no.
Certinaly everything is relative in some respects, but there are values that transcend all belief systems. Basic laws of humanity, like murder is wrong.

As well, you are assuming that everyone is equal. What if morality was defined by a being that is greater than yourself, a being that has the ultimate insight as to the best way for you to live because he created you and has a plan for your life?

Now that kind of morality is superior to mere 'human' derived morality.


Originally posted by arcana imperii
But that my point isn’t every thing relative what’s right what’s intolerant to one person is not to another.


Exactly NetChicken,

There has to be a standard or humananity would run rampant and lawless..............



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Well let's go back to "Universal Morality" here...

Take murder for example, what is murder?

It's obviously not killing, because we kill all the time and attempt to justify it on multiple levels.

Murder is the unnecissary killing of someone useful to your "group".

To say the least.

Murder also it our current times can be expanded to simply, the unjustified killing of anyone.

But in the furthest past it would have been the more barbaric former.

What I mainly mean with "Universal Morality" though is hard to necissarily define, but I would say it's more along the lines of a general code of ethics, morals, but most importantly a form of respect that we show eachother.

Things that we all will say make us decent, if we look back on what we were before.

A Nazi concentration camp officer probably wouldn't have seen any problem with his job during the acts, but when he was forced to look at it from a "higher degree" of morality, he like anyone else, would feel ashamed.

Even if the slightest bit...or they are messed up in the head some way


Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 10-7-2003 by FreeMason]



Agreed Freemason. I have posted it here before, on various topics on what is "rightness" or "wrongness"? Morality or Universal Morality is the same.

We as humans define morality or right and wrong by our own concepts of 'rightness' or 'wrongness'. There are laws, there are guidelines, etc. but all-in-all, what is really "morality" in relation to "rightness" or "wrongness" other than Man's subjective judgement in a personal value system?

What one may see to be wrong or right, another may see the opposite. Codes, ethics, morals all fall under subjective judgements in a personal value system which, in short, define Self. Personally, if everyone did "the do unto others as one would have them do unto you", we would be a whole lot better off, but this very same 'creedo' or motto goes unheeded and ignored everyday....

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 9 2003 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Seekerof

The more modern credo is "Do unto others, then split."






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join