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: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


No, I wasn't.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mykahel
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.




Jealousy is an emotion and typically refers to the negative thoughts and feelings of insecurity, fear, and anxiety over an anticipated loss of something that the person values, such as a relationship, friendship, or love. Jealousy often consists of a combination of emotions such as anger, sadness, and disgust. It is not to be confused with envy.


Sorry to bother you with a wiki quote. Jealousy stems from your insecurity of not knowing how (in your example) the men and your wife will react and interact in the future. If you knew that in advance, like an omniscient god, the feeling would not occur.

Feelings, emotions happen because we go through constant changes of awareness. Would an omniscient god "feel" the same way?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


I have to disagree. God does choose sides, because there are absolutes as far as right and wrong and God will always do what is Right. If you believe what Scripture says, and I do, then there is no other God except a God who is living and Active with His creation, not distant and uninvolved like some kind of eternal energy source. Part of the joy of believing in the God of the Bible is that He is personal and that you can know Him to a degree. We cannot fully understand Him because of His transcendence, but we can know Him because we can see what He has done and chosen to do, and especially in the man of Jesus Christ. Just my thoughts and beliefs. They've been tried and refined plenty, and I don't envision them changing. You're entitled to believe as you do of course, but I also don't buy into the whatever is truth for you is truth. I believe that reality isn't relative, there are absolutes. We don't get to decide who or what God is, we don't have that power. I think the Bible explains to us the character of the God that does exist.

Sorry for getting a little off topic there as far as the thread is concerned.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Sorry to bother you with a wiki quote. Jealousy stems from your insecurity of not knowing how (in your example) the men and your wife will react and interact in the future. If you knew that in advance, like an omniscient god, the feeling would not occur.

Feelings, emotions happen because we go through constant changes of awareness. Would an omniscient god "feel" the same way?


Ah, and the misunderstanding becomes so clear with that post. I had never understood envy and jealousy to be different. I had not considered jealousy to be a reaction to insecurity, but was thinking of it more in terms of envy where you know the situation and are unsatisfied with it and have displeasure as a result. It would be interesting to see if a different word for the Hebrew and Greek fits better than jealousy. Normally I try not to go the route of simply calling it a translation issue, as that is a fairly shallow way to address serious issues, but perhaps we have chosen an english word with its meaning that doesnt really give the meaning of the original concept. There are words from those languages that we have translated poorly in the past and some that we do not even know the meaning for. For instance, I have serious issues with the way Hell and Hades are used in place of each other, but that's another huge issue I've discussed with others in other threads.

Anyway, I would agree that a omniscient God could not be jealous by that definition. Another definition as given by M-W.com (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) is as follows:



Definition of JEALOUS
1
a : intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness b : disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness
2
: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage
3
: vigilant in guarding a possession


As you can see, using this definition, jealousy fits very well as the word used to describe God, especially 1a and 3. Thanks for a civil conversation on the matter. Not many on the threads seem to be able to remain civil and respectful during conversations like this.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Mykahel]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
[
To the OP ALLisOne,

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.


I'm glad you feel it's a waste of time. Makes life much simpler and blissful. No sarcasm here!

I on the other hand have always wondered why billions subscribe to books that claim to be of godly origin, but propagate murder and destruction in his name. So, in those books god is clearly not lik you have defined it. (And no, Islam is not a religion of peace either.) That never made sense to me and I always wondered about that logic.

Hence the question if religious people are ethically challenged. I think if you need to look for guidance, that moral compass should be crystal clear and not as murky, and politically tinted as those "holy" books.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Mykahel
 


I'm glad you think I'm civil. Not many share your opinion.

Look, my main problem with religion is that it's poorly executed, and it is stuck in its infancy. The authors of the religious texts made mistakes. Once they started to personify a deity, give it human emotions and morals, it went downhill.

Let me ask you: why would an omniscient & omnipotent god who always was, is and will be, create anything at all? 1+1 is equal to infinity in her world. Why the primal motor?

If god is all, one consciousness, how did the little mishap with Lucifer happen? Where did the angels come from? Why are there no female angels ... LOL. Who put the snake in the garden of Eden?

Anyway, too many questions and too little time.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


I know I'll never be able to answer every question, and my answers have likely been heard before but in case they haven't I feel they are worth repeating here.

Addressing why God would create anything at all...
God is love. This is one of His primary characteristics. Being love, He could not simply love Himself but needed somebody to love, as love is best illustrated between two entities that can choose to love each other. A non-responsive creation would not suffice to exemplify His love. This is why we were also created even though He knew we would reject Him, because in order for us to really love Him, we have to choose to do so. Kinda like the whole Genies can't force a person to love somebody in theory. Love needs free will.

Along with that, the angels had free will as well. I would say everything in the spiritual realm was created in Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Doesn't give us the details of it, but I think all of it is theoretically in that time. It's simply not recorded because it was not revealed to the author, Moses, and possibly because it had no relevance to the redemptive story made whole throughout the collection of books that make up the Bible.

There is more interesting stuff in the Apocrypha concerning the angels origin and their fall from grace, and I have not read them all and cannot endorse what they have to say as a result, but what I have read has been interesting to say the least.

If I was an eternal God, I'd want something to do and creating the universe sounds like as good a plan as any. :-P

Edit: For the record, I think "religion" is terribly executed as well. I have faith in God and believe that the Bible is the best channel I have at understanding who God is as well as who I am as well. I am a leader in the church, and yet I see so much in churches as a whole that honestly just makes me sick. I'm not even talking about the major corruptness found in the Catholic church, or the get rich quick false prophets like Benny Hinn. I'm talking about the plain laziness and hypocritical actions of the people who claim to be followers of the son of God. Our actions have caused unbelievers to speak poorly not just of Christians but of God Himself.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Mykahel]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AllIsOne
 


Yes you were. The OP is nothing but a thinly veiled way to state religious folks don't have a working moral compass because they "need" a book to guide them. You were using ethically challenged in that sense, not in the other sense.

The answer is the same. Most people have a sense of ethics whether they are religious or not.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by 547000]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Well, opinions are like a-holes. Everybody got one.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mykahel
reply to post by AllIsOne
 

Addressing why God would create anything at all...
God is love.


Thanks for your answer.

So, you are clearly not talking about the god as depicted in the OT. That dude was not about love. Conquests, destruction and blind obedience comes to mind ...

Hey, we can go about this all day. I respect your belief system and we have talked about this before (remember?). I just think that nobody knows what god is. I think your guess is as good as mine and therefore I stay "agnostic".

Now, do you think somebody can behave ethically without ever reading religious texts?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Are religious people ethically challenged? I am a secularist and also of the opinion that religion has no place in politics or any other official organs. Religion is not scientifically proven and it´s content is violating the law of human rights. Religion is a contradiction in itself in terms of human rights and ethics. Ethically challenged? No doubt.
www.sekularisme.net...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by 547000
 


Well, opinions are like a-holes. Everybody got one.


Good. But I just answered your question asking for my opinion. No need to get all offended because the answer was not the one you were looking for.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by 547000]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Now, do you think somebody can behave ethically without ever reading religious texts?


Yes.

My reason of course is a religious one but here goes if you want the long answer.

Scripture says we were created in God's image and God is good. By free will we messed things up and now have a mixed nature, not being inherently good or evil but with the desire to do both. I think some people have stronger desires to go one way more than the other, and I think that is mostly the result of parenting and other social influences.

I don't think "religion" is required to be ethical, but I do think it is required to have a set foundation for those ethics. My question is this.

Who has the authority to ultimately say what is right and wrong and determine what is ethical? Is it majority vote because of common sense? That hasn't worked out so well in the past. Personally, I think the decline of ethics in America is mostly a result of our buying into this relative truth and relative ethics bologna, but that's just me and a large number of other "religious" folks.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by irptinfo
 


Man, the only thing keeping me from being entirely offended by that statement is the complete and astronomical over-generalization that shows how narrow-minded you are regarding religion. Care to tell me how the law of loving God and loving my neighbor is a complete contradiction of ethics? Arguments against religion in general I can understand, and even picking out specifics, but that was just sad.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by 547000
 


Well, opinions are like a-holes. Everybody got one.


Good. But I just answered your question asking for my opinion. No need to get all offended because the answer was not the one you were looking for.


[edit on 27-8-2010 by 547000]


Let's get it straight: I value every opinion. But when somebody puts words in my mouth and "thinks" he knows what I'm stating, well that's an entirely different story.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
EDIT: Double Post.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by 547000]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

Are religious folks ethically challenged?

Why do so many people rely on books (mostly the Bible, the Quran or the Torah) to guide them in ethical matters? If you had a strong sense of what is right and wrong you wouldn't need that kind of a crutch.

I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other. Now, do I live a murderous, philandering, evil life? No, I don't! My internal compass tells me what to do.

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


Book or no book, most people are not ethically challenged. Just because they have a book doesn't mean the do not inherently know right from wrong.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by 547000]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000


Book or not book, most people are not ethically challenged.


We are all ethically challenged. It's what make us human.

Don't know your gender, but let's assume that your husband kills your mother in front of you and there is a knife on the kitchen table ... What happens next?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Read what I bolded. Are religious people less ethical because they have a book that guides them?

To the situation: I run away, psychopath on the loose.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mykahel

Scripture says we were created in God's image and God is good. By free will we messed things up and now have a mixed nature, not being inherently good or evil but with the desire to do both.


Hold it right there! How can you say god is good?

Look, I asked you this before, but you didn't answer. Did god put the snake (devil) in the garden of Eden or was it our free will? If god is entirely "good" how did the existence of the snake come about?



Genesis 1:

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


So all was good. Agreed?




Genesis 2:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.


God finished his work, he completed it and there is no mention of anything bad or evil. He explicitly mentions heavens and earth. This encapsulates the spiritual and physical realm. Right?




Genesis 2:

In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


To me, that is the stunner: god introduced the knowledge of good and evil. But how can he know about evil when all he ever created to this point was good and he himself is good?




Genesis 2:

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


Here is another logic-stunner: god, who is omniscient, talks to Adam knowing full well that his rap is BS because Adam & Eve will eat from the tree. When he planted that tree he knew that said action will doom Adam & Eve.


Why do you keep referring to a book that is in its core morally ambigous, unclear and confusing? God, as depicted in the Bible, is good?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join