God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   

You'd have to first prove that your religion or indeed any religion is or was a basis for morality, as like I said, it isn't and never has been.


Actually, a near or simple majority of Christians belong to churches which teach that all mentally competent persons are endowed by God with what might be called "conscience," and that conformity with conscience furnishes principled guidance for morality, regardless of a moral agent's religious opinion. A precise score is hard, because the teaching is clear in Roman Catholicism, but divisive in Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy has the idea of conscience, but with less clear doctrine than its Roman counterpart.

In this view, religion is not the "basis" for morality. Such a religion often is, however, in its own terms and in its moral aspect, a vehicle for cultivating conscience, seen as God-given and God-based, which is the personal basis of moral behavior.

The stronger critique, then, of modern secular states like the Soviet Union, PR China and Cambodia would be that they systematically turn away from conscience to accomplish their objectives.

The very fact that so many atheists scream bloody murder when hearing these examples seems to me evidence that moral conscience does cross religious boundaries. Naked ruthlessness, like Stalin's, is diagnosed as a mental illness. That may be lousy medicine, but it's great discernment.

Rehabiltation of secularism itself from such a critique cannot be a denial that these states are modern or secular. Rather, it would be a showing that the voice of conscience might be attended to in public life even if the source of conscience were in dispute.

As it happens, I am a secular person raised in a Christian culture who is fond of Carl Jung, another secular cultural Christian. Jung persuades me that there is much in conscience upon which I can rely. I am confident, then, that a conscientious secular culture can exist.

That optimism is tempered, however, by those monstrous states. Conscientious culture is not easily achieved. I think that counter-religious examples take their place in reinforcing that point, and that the more thoughtful religious poster might also concede the possibility that religion, too, can in some cases block out the voice of conscience.




posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
"thoughtful religious poster"

I know some thoughtful spiritual posters.

I have yet to know a thoughtful religious poster as they let their religions corrupt their morals.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
"thoughtful religious poster"

I know some thoughtful spiritual posters.

I have yet to know a thoughtful religious poster as they let their religions corrupt their morals.


Which of my morals have been corrupted by religion, DL?

Why do you continue to duck the question of defending Article 58 and explaining why you think the Ten Commandments are worse than that bit of secular law?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

Actually, a near or simple majority of Christians belong to churches which teach that all mentally competent persons are endowed by God with what might be called "conscience," and that conformity with conscience furnishes principled guidance for morality, regardless of a moral agent's religious opinion. A precise score is hard, because the teaching is clear in Roman Catholicism, but divisive in Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy has the idea of conscience, but with less clear doctrine than its Roman counterpart.



Living in social groups has meant we developed what some call a conscience long before the rise of Christianity. We wouldn't have gotten to the point where such a belief set can be established without some kind of moral compass to begin with. And I've never come across any evidence to suggest that folk belonging to the various denominations of that cult lead a more moral existence than those that do not. Yet time and time again they will attempt to paint those who don't share their superstitious beliefs as being bereft of a moral compass, while glossing over and ignoring the distinctly immoral teachings contained within their 'holy' book.




In this view, religion is not the "basis" for morality. Such a religion often is, however, in its own terms and in its moral aspect, a vehicle for cultivating conscience, seen as God-given and God-based, which is the personal basis of moral behaviour.



Living in a society, in a group, in a family, is just as much 'a vehicle for cultivating conscience' as any set of superstitious beliefs.




The stronger critique, then, of modern secular states like the Soviet Union, PR China and Cambodia would be that they systematically turn away from conscience to accomplish their objectives.



It's important it's made clear it was the dictators and rulers of such states that had objectives, not the general population living under the dictators heel.




The very fact that so many atheists scream bloody murder when hearing these examples seems to me evidence that moral conscience does cross religious boundaries. Naked ruthlessness, like Stalin's, is diagnosed as a mental illness. That may be lousy medicine, but it's great discernment.



Such 'examples' are always made in an effort to place the blame of such atrocities on atheism, or in simpler terms, just not being in their gang. It propagates the idea that you're unable to have any morals unless you're in their gang, and this is entirely untrue. That and the sheer frustration of having to refute such claims almost constantly is a reason why you might hear a bit of screaming murder, now and again.




Rehabilitation of secularism itself from such a critique cannot be a denial that these states are modern or secular. Rather, it would be a showing that the voice of conscience might be attended to in public life even if the source of conscience were in dispute.



There's a long list of modern, secular countries in existence today. But unlike Stalinist Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia, they're missing the key ingredient that lead those states down the path to genocide. Namely a dictator, that would've carried out his/her actions in order to reach their objectives regardless of whether or not they had superstitious beliefs.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
GIA


I have yet to know a thoughtful religious poster as they let their religions corrupt their morals.


You've got some in this thread.


Pzebo


... we developed what some call a conscience long before the rise of Christianity.


Typical Christian anthropology doesn't deny that. Did you read my post, by any chance?


Actually, a near or simple majority of Christians belong to churches which teach that all mentally competent persons are endowed by God with what might be called "conscience," and that conformity with conscience furnishes principled guidance for morality, regardless of a moral agent's religious opinion.


Christianity = 2,000 years ago. Mentally competent persons = what do you think? 100,000 years ago? 200,000? more? The rise of Christianity does not, in Christianity's view, coincide with God's endowment of human capacity.

The rest of the paragraph follows suit. For example, All mentally competent persons, not just Christians who are mentally competent. And so on.

So, your statement that "You'd have to first prove that your religion or indeed any religion is or was a basis for morality, as like I said, it isn't and never has been," which I quoted and addressed, is misplaced for most Christians, or very close to most.


Living in a society, in a group, in a family, is ... 'a vehicle for cultivating conscience' ...


Yes, I would think so.


It's important it's made clear it was the dictators and rulers of such states that had objectives, not the general population living under the dictators heel.


Yes, it's natural to distinguish criminals from their victims.


It propagates the idea that you're unable to have any morals unless you're in their gang, and this is entirely untrue.


I think it is entirely untrue, too. It must be a relief for you to learn that this other view isn't the overwhelming position of your opponents, either. That should help foster constructive debate.

Finally, I do think democracy is an important factor in avoiding catastrophes of the kind we've been discussing. I fear some Native Americans and some African Americans might dispute that it's a foolproof guarantee that the voice of conscience will be the guide to action.
-
edit on 11-12-2012 by eight bits because: so many keys, so few of them the right one.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
"thoughtful religious poster"

I know some thoughtful spiritual posters.

I have yet to know a thoughtful religious poster as they let their religions corrupt their morals.


Which of my morals have been corrupted by religion, DL?

Why do you continue to duck the question of defending Article 58 and explaining why you think the Ten Commandments are worse than that bit of secular law?


Because I am looking at the big picture. The forest is doing fine even if some of the trees are not the best.

You follow an insane God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL
edit on 12-12-2012 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
The grouping instinct and peer pressure has compromised Christian morals.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

Typical Christian anthropology doesn't deny that. Did you read my post, by any chance?



Typical maybe amongst the Christians you have encountered, but it's certainly not typical of the ones I have encountered, a good example is the poster I was replying to previously. His/her position seemed to be that with the removal of religion, the removal of their gods objective moral laws, we descend into genocide and murder.

Haven't you ever heard Christians asking Atheists "If you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?"

They're not asking "where do you think you're getting your morals from?", they believe there moral law is gained directly from the Bible.

Maybe I encounter a lot more protestant Christians than I do Catholic, they do tend to be the more evangelical. But I do not think you're correct in saying that it's typical or the standard Christian anthropology. A brief browse of the boards here on ATS should help you also foster further constructive debate...



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


None of that gibberish answers my questions, DL. How am I immoral, and why is the secular law of the Soviet Union, as demonstrated by Article 58, superior to following the Ten Commandments? Since you've accused me of being immoral because I am a person of faith, I'm like to know your evidence for that accusation, and since you've said that secular law is more moral than the Ten Commandments, I'd like to hear your defence of Article 58.

And, on the subject of insanity, you know what I think behaviour that borders on insane might be? Someone who doesn't believe in God, yet spends the majority of their free time on a website, jabbering on about the qualities, characteristics and values of this purely fictional deity, all the while deluding himself into thinking that his fantasies and diatribes are, in any way, making the world a better place.

That seems like pretty kooky behaviour to me.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by eight bits

Typical Christian anthropology doesn't deny that. Did you read my post, by any chance?



Typical maybe amongst the Christians you have encountered, but it's certainly not typical of the ones I have encountered, a good example is the poster I was replying to previously. His/her position seemed to be that with the removal of religion, the removal of their gods objective moral laws, we descend into genocide and murder.


Show me where I said that, please.

Citing the clear historical evidence of the 20th Century is hardly saying it is inevitable, simply that, if the past is any indication, secularism is not some "silver bullet solution" to the world's problems.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Prezbo369


Typical maybe amongst the Christians you have encountered, ...


No, as I said in my post, I went by number of church members. There are more Roman Catholics than anything other kind of Christian, very possibly a majority outright, and they are solid on this. Other views of the nature and authority of conscience are distributed throughout the rest of the Nicene community, so it's harder to count the others who are on board.


... a good example is the poster I was replying to previously....
.

That poster, adj, has already commented on your characterization of his post. I can't find where he said those things you mentioned, and look forward to your clarification of that.


Haven't you ever heard Christians asking Atheists "If you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals from?"


Yes, just as I have heard Christians question other Christians' morals, with different "If's."


They're not asking "where do you think you're getting your morals from?", they believe there moral law is gained directly from the Bible.


I think you are so convinced of your view about how "they" behave that you're not noticing the differences among Christians on these issues.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


I don't watch videos, DL, care to summarize? Oh, and I assume that's a video of me, since the question is your assertion that I am immoral, personally.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


hehe, good one


unfortunately, moral and religion don't like eachother
check this one...
who is inneset ????



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


I don't watch videos, DL, care to summarize? Oh, and I assume that's a video of me, since the question is your assertion that I am immoral, personally.


Bottom line is that you would give your God a pass for doing what you would condemn a person for doing.
The only way you can follow your prick of a God is with a double standard moral.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrzYma

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


hehe, good one


unfortunately, moral and religion don't like eachother
check this one...
who is inneset ????


Thanks for this.

Like most literalists and fundamentals, he has his fingers in his ears and is saying la la la la la la.

All the Abrahamic religions are religions of love.
They all love to hate all others not of their particular cult.

Regards
DL



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Here is a sample of Christian morality.

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL


I don't watch videos, DL, care to summarize? Oh, and I assume that's a video of me, since the question is your assertion that I am immoral, personally.


Bottom line is that you would give your God a pass for doing what you would condemn a person for doing.


And what is there evidence of God doing that I "have given him a pass for doing" but have condemned a person for doing? Again, you're directly accusing me of something, so what activity has God done that you have seen me exhibiting a double standard for?



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Show me where I said that, please.



I didn't quote you as saying as much, I said it seemed to be your position.

From you very first post in this thread you have attempted to level the atrocities committed in Stalin's dictatorship on secularism, calling it 'Secular Law'. The fact that 1927 Soviet Russia was secular (i.e. wasn't for or against religion) is completely irrelevant in regards to the deaths of millions. It's about as relevant to those deaths as the fact that Stalin wore a moustache.

So it seems to me, that when the only modern, secular (neutral to religion) state/s you bother to mention also just so happen to be under murderous dictatorships, you're perpetuating the view that without religion we descend into murder and genocide.

Nobody is claiming that secularism is the 'silver bullet solution' to the worlds problems, but the baggage and division religeon brings with it certainly doesn't help, and IMHO it's something we can live without as it doesn't bring anything to the table that cannot be gained elsewhere.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
Prezbo369

No, as I said in my post, I went by number of church members. There are more Roman Catholics than anything other kind of Christian, very possibly a majority outright, and they are solid on this. Other views of the nature and authority of conscience are distributed throughout the rest of the Nicene community, so it's harder to count the others who are on board.



Well just because there are more Catholics in church, does not mean the Catholic dogma on this matter is the default Christian dogma either. I guess this just highlights the complete uselessness of the term 'Christian'.

But as I said, perhaps it's because they're more evangelical but in my experience the overwhelming belief i've encountered both here, elsewhere online and IRL is the aforementioned belief.






That poster, adj, has already commented on your characterization of his post. I can't find where he said those things you mentioned, and look forward to your clarification of that.



I said it Seemed to be his/her position, I didn't quote his as saying anything (see above for an end to your anticipation).




Yes, just as I have heard Christians question other Christians' morals, with different "If's."



As they should, but if you've heard that question being directed towards atheists you know exactly what I'm getting at....



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


I don't care what inferences you're thinking that you can draw from what I said, because you're clearly and blatantly misrepresenting what I said. It doesn't "seem" like that's my position, you're assuming that's my position, simply because a) it can be inferred and b) it furthers your argument.


From you very first post in this thread you have attempted to level the atrocities committed in Stalin's dictatorship on secularism, calling it 'Secular Law'. The fact that 1927 Soviet Russia was secular (i.e. wasn't for or against religion) is completely irrelevant in regards to the deaths of millions. It's about as relevant to those deaths as the fact that Stalin wore a moustache.


That's a baseless argument and you know it.

Is Article 58 a religious law or a secular one?

Assuming that you aren't disingenuous enough to claim it isn't a secular law, then you would have to agree that it serves as an example of a secular law, though which millions were killed. It doesn't matter if there are thousands of other secular laws that are exemplary ones, or what the motivation of the Soviet government was for passing this legislation, because I never said "all secular law is bad" or that societies without religion will inevitably crumble into degeneracy, I just put forth this particular law as an example of secular law that one would have to be an imbecile to agree to live under.

Is that cherry picking? Well, of course it is, but that's fair in this discussion, because that's what DL is doing -- you'll notice that he has refused to answer my question about what's so bad about living under the auspices of the Ten Commandments, and that's because he doesn't have an answer -- the "God's laws" that he's so up in arms about have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join