Are religious folks ethically challenged?

reply to post by dominicus


Sorry to break your bubble, but I've been a Buddhist for years. I'm not a stranger to meditation ...

reply to post by igor_ats


Thanks for your post!

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

I mean, it all boils down to loving God and Loving people. The loving God part would take a bit longer to explain, but Christian ethics should be best described as putting other people's needs above your own. Love people, the perfect ethical rule to live by. Christ himself said that all the law and all of the prophets find their foundation in that simple rule.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Mykahel]

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The ethics of Jesus Christ always made sense to me. Unfortunately, I can't say that for the murderous, jealous, scheming god (as described in the OT) who chose one tribe over another.

reply to post by prophecywatcher


Which part of the Bible: OT or NT?

The god of the OT is a warrior, the center of the NT is a man of peace.

The OP must have accidentally been worded as a question. It's pretty clear by now that it's nothing more than a statement. The "questions" are all rhetorical and a vast majority of the author's responses are merely re-assertions of the original statement OR personal religious beliefs. A lot of pride is derived any time the topic seems to "hit a nerve" with someone.

Originally posted by AllIsOne...I was influenced by my parents and by logic. I behave towards others as I expect them to behave towards me.

Yes, I knew that stealing was wrong. I never threw an acorn at a car. It was a small pebble.

Originally posted by AllIsOne....I was raised Roman-Catholic. Trust me, I do know the Bible. ....

So, at one point in your life, you were also ethically challenged and relied on a religious text for your morals. They are the entire basis for your idea of right and wrong but you simply outgrew the need for those religious texts as they "raised more questions than answers" for you. From then on, personal experience took over. Your sense of morality still derives in some way from what you learned in early childhood, even if it merely consists of disagreeing with portions of that training based on life experience and logic.

Are religious folks ethically challenged? Yes, as are non-religious folks in equal measure.

Reading between the lines, there is no honest question posed here, just a thinly veiled statement against organized religion. Unfortunately for you, you didn't strike a nerve with me. I'm merely disappointed that this wasn't really about having an interesting discussion on the nature and origin of morality.

As a veiled attack on the personal beliefs of others, I think the motive behind this thread is somewhat immoral, at least according to my own 'internal compass'.

This thread is also clearly in the wrong section since it's far from a non-religious discussion of "Philosophy and Metaphysics".

reply to post by AllIsOne

Sorry to break your bubble, but I've been a Buddhist for years. I'm not a stranger to meditation ...

thats great.... so you should know that the same ego that is quieted on the onset to meditation, is the same ego the comes back once the meditation is done ....

....the same ego with all of its concepts, assumptions, relative ideas, duality, etc.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by dominicus]

Originally posted by DM8954
So, at one point in your life, you were also ethically challenged and relied on a religious text for your morals.

We're all ethically challenged. I had to attend bible study. There was no choice where I grew up at that time. But I never relied on the Bible for ethics. Very early on I was disturbed by the action of god in the OT. That entity didn't seem wise to me.

They are the entire basis for your idea of right and wrong but you simply outgrew the need for those religious texts as they "raised more questions than answers" for you.

I never outgrew those sets of ethics because they never made sense to me. I.e.: as a god I would never ask anybody to sacrifice their child as proof of loyalty. But again, that's just me. (Numbers 31:25-30, 40-41 (NKJV))

Reading between the lines, there is no honest question posed here, just a thinly veiled statement against organized religion. Unfortunately for you, you didn't strike a nerve with me. I'm merely disappointed that this wasn't really about having an interesting discussion on the nature and origin of morality.

It was an honest question and I think you're merely disappointed that the thread didn't go your way. You have yet to contribute anything of substance besides ad hominem.

As a veiled attack on the personal beliefs of others, I think the motive behind this thread is somewhat immoral, at least according to my own 'internal compass'.

This thread is also clearly in the wrong section since it's far from a non-religious discussion of "Philosophy and Metaphysics".

So it is immoral to ask hard questions about the followers of religious texts? Luckily some of us have transcended the age of Inquisition (1515).

And you are wrong again: a mod moved the thread to where it is now

reply to post by dominicus


Did you write your last post in a meditative state?

Originally posted by AllIsOne....We're all ethically challenged. ... I never relied on the Bible for ethics. Very early on I was disturbed by the action of god in the OT. That entity didn't seem wise to me.

...So it is immoral to ask hard questions about the followers of religious texts? Luckily some of us have transcended the age of Inquisition (1515). ...

...you are wrong again: a mod moved the thread to where it is now

I stand by my claim that this is in the wrong section. It was moved here before I first posted and long before it became so obvious that you intend this as primarily a religious debate. I won't ask that it be moved this late in the game but my point still stands and hopefully I'll make it more clear with future statements.

I feel my first post could be considered a contribution to the topic... if this topic is really about the nature and origin of ethics and morality or an inherent sense of right and wrong. Of course, if this thread is actually about the argument that 'agnosticism is better than organized religions', then my first post was completely off topic.

I think the first reply to the OP was very telling about the nature of this whole conversation. badgerprints seems to have been confused by your statement about lacking evidence on both sides, under the mistaken assumption that this thread is about ethics, rather than religion. It seems to have nothing to do with whether or not religious people are ethically challenged but everything to do with your personal view of agnosticism as "the only honest way to roll." That is my problem with the way this thread is going, not that 'things aren't going my way.' I haven't yet formed a definitive opinion on whether we're born knowing right from wrong. Even though I do suspect that outside influence has a larger role in the process of forming moral principles within an individual, if strong arguments are made to show that external influence can sometimes have a minimal effect on a person's sense of morality, I won't be devastated that I was somehow wrong.

The 'immorality' I claim against your OP is in intentionally falsifying your intent. This certainly doesn't seem to be the honest question you claim but a platform from which to demonstrate agnostic superiority. I would have no moral problem with this stance, if you had been up front about it. It's essentially an expert troll. People come here for open discussion and immediately have their faith challenged instead. No, it's not immoral to "ask hard questions" but these challenges seem to be your primary interest and are only peripherally related to the topic of morality. Your opinion on the god of the OT or how questionable the content of a heavily edited religious book might be has very little to do with the idea that human beings can form strong morals without these texts.

As for my latest post being ad hominim, I can't attack an argument that was never made. It seems to me a vast majority of your responses here deal primarily with the lack of definitive evidence for a deity. I'm not sure what your real stance on the supposed topic at hand is because you've been too busy pushing your worldview as the "only honest way".

So far, it seems that you've claimed that: '[ethics] are all relative'; humans are 'carbon based', not assumed 'spiritual'; you have an 'inner compass' though unsure of 'universal' morality; you agree with crazydaisy that knowledge of good and evil is inherent; and that "we're all ethically challenged."

With that last statement, you've answered the title question. Case closed?

If you're out to prove that agnosticism is the only honest religious belief, change the title of the thread. If you posed an honest question and simply got off track... get back on track. Talk about something relevant.

By the way, declaring me beneath 'the Age of Inqusition' is also ad hominim.

reply to post by DM8954


It is very interesting to see what people read into a thread. I think you're totally hung up on the term agnosticism and judging from your quote below I'm not sure you even understand what it means. Also, I've never said that agnosticism is superior to anything. Please point out where I say such a thing?

If you're out to prove that agnosticism is the only honest religious belief, change the title of the thread.

Agnosticism is the antidote to a (religious) belief system. Read your sentence again.

But I do stand by my statement that I feel there is no proof for a deity, so instead of jumping to conclusions I just say "I don't know", aka agnosticism. In my view anybody who says I know actually doesn't. Believing in a god is a matter of faith.

Anywho, I only threw agnosticism in the mix to give the reader a baseline so she knows what my point of reference is. Many religious people are quick to say that without the religious texts we would lack an ethical baseline. I don't think that is true.

Yes, I misworded a sentence, good catch. Agnosticism is a worldview that weighs in on the existence of 'god(s)', so I view it as a form of religious belief, to some extent. I'm pretty clear on the point about the claim that there is insufficient proof for you to declare that god exists, so you you leave the possibility open and move on with your life. That's fine. This isn't the place to discuss my view of Agnosticism, even if it is flawed in your opinion, so I'll just leave it at that.

You only threw agnosticism into the mix several times now. You've brought it up in almost a third of your posts so far. Apparently, I'm not the only one hung up on agnosticism. I'm more than willing to drop it if you're willing to say something substantive about anything else.

It took a lot of digging to list my interpretation of what you've implied about what your views on the topic actually are. The only thing you've really gone into detail about has been how flawed the god of the OT is and how little value you place on the actual content of the religious texts. That's fine, too, and I respect your view... I would simply like to hear a more detailed account of your views of the actual topic. You've touched on it enough that we get where you're coming from, now lets hear where this is going.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
.... I've never said that agnosticism is superior to anything. Please point out where I say such a thing?

...Agnosticism is the antidote to a (religious) belief system. Read your sentence again.

First, aren't antidotes typically used to treat diseases? Maybe you weren't implying that religion is bad and needs curing but it certainly adds to the impression of superiority that I, for one, sense from the tone of many of your responses. If I'm misreading that sentiment in post after post, I apologize but I'm just putting it out there so you can see where I'm coming from.

Also:

Originally posted by AllIsOne
....I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. ....

Originally posted by AllIsOne
...We don't know - therefore agnosticism is the only honest way. ....

As opposed to religions, which are dishonest? Isn't honesty superior to dishonesty?

I'm not going to go through and quote every instance where I feel this sense of superiority is implied. You've never used agnosticism and superior in the same sentence, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's difficult to interpret things like sarcasm and tone in plain text so we can just move past it and get to the meat of the conversation.
_________________

...Many religious people are quick to say that without the religious texts we would lack an ethical baseline. I don't think that is true.

I tend to agree. I would argue that the most basic precepts laid out in most of the religious texts are a good foundation to build a person's morality on but we could certainly develop good morals without them.

For one, there are plenty of other influences on a person's sense of right and wrong. Half a lifetime of experience, via parents, is already a large portion of early ethical development. Whether the parents built this view of right and wrong from studying religious texts or from the 'law of the jungle' doesn't necessarily change many of the 'fundamental truths' that seem to exist in human ethics. Without additional outside influences, parents would simply take on a greater role.

I guess my questions are as follow:

• "How much of a sense of morality are humans inherently born with?"
  
• "As 'social animals', is there anything we don't pick up from the people around us?"
  
• "Is there really a universal moral code?"
  

Unfortunately, I won't be around for a couple days to read the responses but I will be back to follow this thread. It's an interesting topic. Hopefully, one we can look into deeply, without too much distraction.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

The ethics of Jesus Christ always made sense to me. Unfortunately, I can't say that for the murderous, jealous, scheming god (as described in the OT) who chose one tribe over another.

Quick explanation of the "murderous, jealous, scheming god" as you out it.

Murderous: The people executed via God's hand directly were being punished for sin. The same is true for those who were conquered by the Israelites. Those towns that they exterminated were pagan and evil. They had no reverence for God or His law. Now, if there were many gods then this one God to claim the authority to do this would be absurd, but if there really is only one true God, he would be justified in destroying those who have rebelled against Him assuming that they had the chance to turn to Him and His perfect law but refused.

Jealous: God is jealous when the people serve false gods and idols. It would be sort of like a child thanking their imaginary friend for teaching them math, science, and literature when it was actually their mother who poured her heart and soul into teaching the child. Would not that parent be jealous and want the credit due them? Especially considering it was given to someone/thing that doesn't even exist? Best illustration I could think of for that. The scriptures themselves often use the image of a man and wife concerning God and His people. I know I would be jealous if my wife was leaving me for someone, especially some guy hat did absolutely nothing for her emotionally or physically while I labor to put food on the table, pay the bills and most of all LOVE her. God loves us and is jealous when we reject Him for blocks of wood shaped like whatever we can conjure up.

Scheming: Don't know about that one. I would say that God has a plan and that he uses all sorts of people, good and bad, to get it accomplished.

Choosing one tribe over another: This is a very good point, and I'm glad you mentioned it. The entire reason to have the Israelites separated from other nationalities was to show the difference between what a people who worshiped God should look like compared to those that don't. There was supposed to be something different and attractive about them. Even in the OT, God's command was to love, and especially the foreigners.

Leviticus 19:18
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

and

Leviticus 19:34
The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

So the Israelites were supposed to convert people by showing them what a true follower of YHWH was supposed to do, love God and love people. That love should be attractive and bring people in to the point where people want to know why the Israelites are different, opening the door to conversation about God without just randomly beating people over the head with "God this" and "God that."

The favoring of one tribe within the Israelites was to further show what complete devotion to God looked like. Not every person could completely give up their life to serve God, as nobody could then bring in the food or protect the people. The Levites were supposed to be the prime example of what devotion to God looked like.

I know you may not agree with all that, but hopefully it shed some new light on the topic.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by Mykahel]

reply to post by Mykahel


Thank you for taking the time to explain stuff. Unfortunately, I have heard all your points before.

The personification of a deity has its own set of problems. If you are omniscient how can you get jealous about anything ... Just think about that one for a minute.

I guess my questions are as follow:

"How much of a sense of morality are humans inherently born with?"
"As 'social animals', is there anything we don't pick up from the people around us?"
"Is there really a universal moral code?"

reply to post by DM8954


- The species homo sapiens might have roughly the same physical features, but software-wise we are vastly different. We are not all born with the same brain and DNA, so the baseline for morality is different for each of us.

- There are frightening clinical studies of sociopaths. They don't care about social norms.

- Not sure I understand your question, but I think the answer is no. Everything is relative.

Originally posted by DM8954
Agnosticism is a worldview that weighs in on the existence of 'god(s)', so I view it as a form of religious belief, to some extent.

Agnosticism does not weigh in on the existence of a deity. If there is a Yes or a NO answer, agnosticism leaves a ---. Why is that so hard to understand?

To answer your question, no, no they are not. Most people are not ethically challenged, religious or not.

Originally posted by 547000
Most people are not ethically challenged, religious or not.

So your actions are always the same as your impulses?

reply to post by AllIsOne


Being ethical doesn't mean following your impulses. If you were referring to challenge in that sense, then most people are ethically challenged, religious or not. But you weren't using challenged in that manner. You were using it in the same manner as calling short people vertically challenged.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by 547000]

reply to post by AllIsOne


I'm not entirely sure I understand your point about the jealousy issue. Being aware of all things does not prevent one from being jealous. If I was aware that half of the men I walked by were lusting after my wife, it wouldn't do anything to prevent jealousy. It would prevent God from ever being surprised, so there may be some sort of tie in there. God's foreknowledge of who would choose him and who would reject Him does not mean that He cannot still feel sorrow and a longing for those who have rejected Him.

reply to post by Mykahel

As far as OT God being Jealous, murderous, and taking sides ...

...you might want to look into the possibility that the authors of the OT who presented the story this way simply projected their own human characteristics onto God.

From my experience of not only what Jesus said, but from 10 years of studying all religions, meditations, and direct experiences, I've had the following assertions:

God is infinity, the source of all life, love's everyone equally, does not choose sides, transcendent, beyond any concept/idea/thought, and yet inherently omnipresent within all things, people, places, etc.

____________
To the OP ALLisOne,
If we scan all the books of the world, all knowledge available, we will be quick to realize that there is talk of a higher state, that it is possible to be Enlightened and from the state one loses the sense of self and operates selflessly with Love and helping others no matter the cost.

It is said the state of Union w/ God or enlightenment is the highest state/level possible and from that state morals/ethics are inherent in the soul and from direct knowledge of God.

One in this state does not kill, forgives, loves, helps, is kind, gentle, peaceful, wise, master of self, mastery of mind/body/thoughts/vices, amongst a vast array of other things.

SO personally for me, its even a waste of time to ask this question of the origin of morals/ethics.