It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are religious folks ethically challenged?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
OP,
I think you are missing the point. We are all spiritual beings having a human experience and with this 'human-ness' comes the heaviness and animalism of the human body.

The body basically has an animalistic sense to it that for a majority people causes problems, desires, instincts, cheating, fighting, wars, etc ...well you see what I mean.

In spirituality ...One basically transcends the animalism and gets back in touch with their real identity. That identity makes you in touch with God and that leads to self-lessness, of service to humanity, love, no fear, no fear of death, experiences of infinity, divinity, etc ....it basically makes the unspiritual life look like hell, like prison.

So the holy books are instructions based on others who have transcended their animalism and reached a state where the body doesn't interfere much with the soul.

Also, the ego is relative to the times, culture, parents, peers. We get corruption, killers, rapists, etc because certain individuals get programmed a certain way. The 'religious' books are just instructions to transcend the Ego which is the lower and lesser of inner morality compared to the soul.

Simple as that, and if you dont agree ......well there's the ego for ya!!!!




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Well your question is a good one.

Your answer is that of a person who thinks that men are the smartest being in existence.

For you to say that agnostic people have it figured out as to what is right and wrong without any ultimate authority is to say that man is god and ultimately knows everything and what is right and wrong.

See for me the Bible has the ultimate authority as it is the only Book that claims that God inspired man to write it, and all of the prophesies have come true so far, plus it proves the existence of fossils and coal fields. And has never been disproved, nor ever will.

See for your belief man decides what if right and wrong by a majority vote so today murder is wrong tomorrow it is ok.

Man changes morals to fit the lust of his heart not to what is right and just. Justice is not what men fulfill greed and lust is a godless man's only desire.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


With or without religious texts in the picture, the initial basis of any human's sense of morals begins in childhood based on the moral instruction of their parents, peers, and the society they live in. From there you can accept, reject, or modify what you know based on personal experience with moral decisions. Even if every person on Earth were to instantly become agnostic, the following generation would gain their sense of right and wrong from the resulting society. Knowledge always builds on the shoulders of previous generations because we are a social species.

We don't exist in a vacuum so we will always experience outside influences. Under ideal environmental circumstances, what do you think is the youngest age a human being could be left in isolation and still manage to survive? Younger than 1 year old? ...probably not, since solid foods are a problem. Maybe 4 or 5 years old, if there are plenty of fruits and berries within easy reach to pick... but by the time they're that advanced, how much have they learned from merely observing the adults interact in the world around them?


I could also imagine a set of theoretical morals in direct conflict with most human ideals yet back them up with some semblance of logic. It might not be too difficult to poke holes in this idea, and I'm certainly not suggesting anyone live by these standards, but bear with me for a minute:
'One of the strongest laws in the natural world is the concept of survival of the fittest. If only the strongest members of a species survives, then the species, as a group, gets stronger. It is therefore immoral to help other people. If they cannot figure things out on their own, their weaknesses can only hurt the species. If they manage to help themselves, they will be wiser and more able to survive in the future. They will pass on strong, healthy genes. Fighting allows people to test their strength and their worthiness to reproduce. Violence is a good way to promote yourself through the ranks of the species and to advance the species above the other inhabitants of a planet.'

Now, if you lived with people with that sort of moral outlook but lived by the standards of the culture we live in now, you would certainly be considered a criminal and probably be targeted as a threat. Anyone raised in that culture could probably see the logic in it and not understand your way of thinking. The ideas of 'good' and 'evil' are practically opposite in the two worldviews... but are they not each essentially valid sets of morals in their own right?


Not having an official guidebook doesn't mean that you haven't been influenced, for better or worse. While religious texts (and religious belief itself) can be misused, that doesn't negate whatever value each belief system has to the true believers.

On top of it all, if you're just asking a genuine question (not trying to declare agnosticism the only valid viewpoint) and you were to somehow 'prove' that religious folks really are "ethically challenged"... doesn't that mean someone should provide them with additional moral guidance... perhaps a written document that spells out what is 'right' and 'wrong', along with suggestions and examples on good ways to live?

[They rely on books for moral guidance, therefore they're challenged and need moral guidance? ...or their books are wrong, so instead they should listen to their own moral compass, as you do?]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne


Are religious folks missing that internal point of reference therefore they need a book to tell them?


When you got to this question, I had to laugh out loud!

I live in Bible belt, Baptist country right now, and to be honest, I have met some people who claim to be Christian, that downright scare me!

They cheat on their spouses, some drink to excess, they work for wages under the table........the list could go on and on.

While I am sure that a cross section of all religions have people like this, what I find ironic, is that in the Bible belt, it isn't so much a book, but that all they have to do is pray to Jesus on Sunday, for all the crap they pulled every other day of the week.

It isn't what they find in the book, but the fact that they assume everything is hunky dory as long as they consult a guy that died on the cross for whatever it is they do wrong.

Sadly to say, Christians that behave this way, while pretending to follow a book, use Jesus for a fall guy! Instead of behaving like Jesus would, they just pray to him for forgiveness.

They have moral compasses that point up, only on Sunday, and forget about it, the rest of the week.

As a believer in Jesus, it's almost embarassing to me to call myself a Christian knowing how the freaking Baptists I have encountered in the south behave!

I have lived all over the country, in some very culterally diverse places, where all types of religious people live side by side.

The only religion I have ever encountered where people seem morally, and ethically inept, are the Baptists I have encountered in the South.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Paul address this in the epistle to the Romans...showing that Some sinners did what was Right based on guidance from their conscience ie they followed their heart.

Because your are not born again does not mean your hedonistic sinners, and that you give in to every depraved impulse on a whim....

there are good people out there...

In fact Jesus said there are many that will say "Lord, Lord" and he will say i never knew you, be cast away....

Romans 2:14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Honestly a little searching of the scripture can handle just about any questions of morality, and you wouldn't be in a spot asking questions like this....


[edit on 22-8-2010 by tspark]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tspark
 



This reminds me of drivers education. An instructor I had, always said, if you are driving in an unfamiliar area, and not sure of the speed limit, go 35 miles per hour.

Instead of just speeding along, wondering why you get pulled over for a ticket, and telling the officer you did not know what the posted speed limit is, you are being safe.

Ignorance, is no excuse for the law!

This applies to morals and ethics!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



Are religious folks ethically challenged?


No more than anybody else. We are all just humans seeking guidance at times, and looking for ways to improve ourselves, and our lives. We find answers in different ways.

I think that's true of most people, regardless of religious affiliation.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Phlynx
 


How would you label Hitler?


Sorry for the late reply.

I would label Hitler is a bad person, but what makes me right in my decision? Why is my decision for what is evil the right one? Hitler thought he was a good person, so what gives my view of him being bad the say over his view of himself being good?

The decision of good and bad, good or evil, is a choice you alone can make, no one is right, no one is wrong. It is only an opinion, so there is no right or wrong in this sense.

I follow my morals, which in your view, are probably "good".

Is good or bad a democratic thing? Would we hold a vote to determine if Hitler is a bad person?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints

Originally posted by Phlynx

Prove that there is good and evil. That is all I will ask of you.

[edit on 22-8-2010 by Phlynx]


How?

Gut you like a fish and then donate your organs to cancer victims?

The choice to ignore the difference between good and evil...is evil.

No need to prove it to you. You make that choice with full knowledge.


Why is your belief of good and evil the true one?

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
simply you are way off my friend
we do not turn to books to tell us what to do, it isnt hard to tell your ethics have been challenged and your path been altered
we turn to these books as guidance, when you find your guidance would you sacrifice it for anyone or any post,
i put it to you that all your ethics that you think come from the dirt originated in some form of religious governance, religion does not impose a way of life it is a choice, obviuosly your choice is too simple and your train of thought even simpler
WHEN MAN DENIES GOD, HE IN TURN DENIES MAN
whether you belive in god or simply the rules your government hands out like its a charity to fix lifes problems, YOU BELIEVE, AND YOULL BLEED FOR YOUR BELIEF (SOLDIER OR EXTREMIST), dont deny others on what they believe or you may find yourself bleeding forever.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I do not believe that religious folks are ethically challenged. From my own experience, the message is the same a majority of the time for about 98% of all religions. But there are 2 individuals that one would encounter. The first misses the message, following what they believe it states. They have the best of intentions, but have not come to the conclusion that would lead them to a greater understanding of what the message is. To them, the end all and be all is a written word, and to question such is an affront to what they believe. And that is the real shame of it all, as they miss the wisdom of the message. The second type of individual is one that just reads, but rather lives the message, they tend to be a bit more progressive in their understanding of what is written, and tend to question what they do not understand, and seek to gain a greater understanding of the meaning and the message.
Many people tend to just pick and choose the different rules in a religion, and should look at all of them, to follow, as they tend to show a very unique perspective of life.
Personally, I think that if we all live with the ideal of being nice to each other, accepting of the other, the world would be a nicer place to live.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
OP,
I think you are missing the point. We are all spiritual beings ...



Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, your opening statement is pure assumption.

We are carbon based living beings. That's all I need to know, and I guess all you "know" as well. Santa is also a spiritual being ...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Well your question is a good one.


Thank you.


Your answer is that of a person who thinks that men are the smartest being in existence.


No, I don't.



For you to say that agnostic people have it figured out as to what is right and wrong without any ultimate authority is to say that man is god and ultimately knows everything and what is right and wrong.


I'm really sorry for not being able to express myself clearly. Agnostics don't confirm or deny the existence of a deity. We lack the data to do so and therefore state that we simply don't know. I have not been presented any undeniable proof re a deity. I'm very open to consider your evidence though.

And yes, I do have an inner compass that is guiding me ethically. Is "my" right or wrong universally Right or Wrong - I don't know.




See for me the Bible has the ultimate authority as it is the only Book that claims that God inspired man to write it, and all of the prophesies have come true so far, plus it proves the existence of fossils and coal fields. And has never been disproved, nor ever will.


No! See below.



Muhammad claims he received the Quran as revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel.

That distinguished exclusivity isn't reserved to the Bible alone ...



See for your belief man decides what if right and wrong by a majority vote so today murder is wrong tomorrow it is ok.


Yes, the death penalty is alive and well in the US. And last time I checked there was a separation of church and state ...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DM8954
 


Yes to your second to last paragraph. You said it eloquently.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Blanca Rose
 


Thanks for sharing. That's scary ... LOL.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tspark
 


Thank you for your post. I was raised Roman-Catholic. Trust me, I do know the Bible. Unfortunately, it raised far more questions than it answered. But I know that everybody reads the book in a different way. My way is not necessarily the right way and I'm happy that your search has ended with the Bible.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyinwaiting
 


Very wise remark. Thank you!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
If your soul, heart and brain are in good working order you will know the difference between good and evil. If you try to live your life for the good you will do fine without the outside influence of anyone or anything. I believe in a creator - sure did make things beautiful and all inspiring but I don't follow religion, god or the bible as it was written by people and I have no idea of the state of their soul, heart and mind - they are total strangers to me. I don't think it is intended for us to know all - perhaps a time will come when we will know but for now we have to work with ourselves. Peace



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phlynx

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by Phlynx
 


How would you label Hitler?


Sorry for the late reply.

I would label Hitler is a bad person, but what makes me right in my decision? Why is my decision for what is evil the right one? Hitler thought he was a good person, so what gives my view of him being bad the say over his view of himself being good?

The decision of good and bad, good or evil, is a choice you alone can make, no one is right, no one is wrong. It is only an opinion, so there is no right or wrong in this sense.

I follow my morals, which in your view, are probably "good".

Is good or bad a democratic thing? Would we hold a vote to determine if Hitler is a bad person?


Thanks for your reply.

In my book there is a clear line crossed when you kill millions of people for political, egotistic and sadistic reasons. I'm sure Hitler felt satisfied for a short while. He was probably very proud of his "accomplishments", but he clearly did cross the line there and nobody in their right mind would call Hitler a good person.

Of course that begs the questions why a good god would not intervene, since he's omnipotent ...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to OP:

On the whole, and strictly from my experience, I have found that morality and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with religion, one way or the other.

Your name is "All Is One"

but the title of your thread is all about pointing out differences, and suggesting that people different from yourself are inferior.

I think you're full of it.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join