Why is salvation important and why do people care or don't care about morality

I have a general conspiracy theory that the teachings of Jesus were rewritten to serve the purpose of perpetuating the legitimacy of government by monarchy. I generally think the Bible was written by men in order to preserve the power of the monarchy. So I don't trust the Bible. I think evil is always where you least expect it.

So with that premise, I want to propose a question. What if instead the original message of salvation was not an individual's eternal damnation, but a person's children. What if the original message were the way you achieve salvation for your children is by living a good moral life. Would people act differently?

I'm not sure the threat of Hell and eternal damnation is really motivating for most people. It may have the opposite affect. The threat of eternal damnation makes people behave even worse out of defiance to authority. But if your behavior determined other people's salvation then maybe people would take morality seriously.

Why is morality important? What is the best way of thinking about it so people are motivated to behave morally? I don't think the threat of eternal damnation is really working anymore. How bad can Hell actually be? It can't be worse than living in New Jersey.

Why is salvation important...

Because your sin buys you a round trip. There has to be a way out of the loop. Jesus is The Way.

One Way.

a reply to: dfnj2015

So by your thinking, both Hitler and I have nothing to worry about since we have no children.

And I guess the same people who changed the Bible also changed the Quran.

6:164 Say, "Shall I seek other than God as a Lord when He is the Lord of everything?" Every person earns what is for it, and none will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return and He will inform you regarding your disputes.*

a reply to: dfnj2015

Morality can only really be seen as man made or interpreted by man, as far as anyone has told me, God has not shown up to them and told them how to be - the reasons to be moral in the sense that a religion lays out for one is more of a fear in my opinion, while lacking morality.. Is all based on our perception of morality.

Of course one can have very altruistic and good morals as rated by others without religion, where they get it.. I don't exactly know. I think it's instilled in us, it's our realization that if we want to be treated well we need to set the example, we do have a conscience and all as well but where that comes from.. Probably something instinctual, built into us to better function as a species, being as social as we are.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Moral has good rewards while immoral has bad rewards.

Think of immoral acts as something that corrupts the body (sin) but it's not always instant.

Nowhere and nothing doesn't exist so immorality does corrupt (it is sin) and will spread over time like a plague.

And that is what the lake of fire is for: to cast all sin and death into; to separate corruption from the rest of the body; to baptize with fire; to cleanse the body.

If you are not baptized by the spirit, you will be baptized by fire, basically.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I have a general conspiracy theory that the teachings of Jesus were rewritten to serve the purpose of perpetuating the legitimacy of government by monarchy. I generally think the Bible was written by men in order to preserve the power of the monarchy.

The bible, or any book, can be seen from many Perspectives. All equally 'valid'.
I see Jesus' words (in the story) as metaphor.
That means that if you read the story a hundred times throughout your life, you'll be reading from 100 unique Perspectives!
That means that it can mean different things to you, provide different insights and understandings every time that you read it, if you 'evolve' normally as you 'live'.

So I don't trust the Bible.

That what, every word is supposed to be taken literally?
It was never meant to be seen that way except by the very 'few'!
The vast majority of us are capable of seeing past the superficiality.
We do not 'trust' a metaphor.
It is a 'mandala' to deeper Reality. (Depends on the person/Perspective)
Many never get past the "Oooh, pretty mandala!" stage...

I think evil is always where you least expect it.

All 'good', all 'evil' exists in the thoughts/imagination/ego of the observer.
When you become the Christian that Jesus described, the one recognized by his unconditional Love, one never judges!
Love does not 'judge', so one never commits the 'sin' of 'morality' (the nibbling of the forbidden fruit, again)

Why is morality important?

Okay, let's talk 'morality' (vs 'ethics');

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"

Without the religious perspective, it is insanity to judge anyone as inherently this or that, good/evil.
We have no choice, no free-will, but to manifest who and what we are at that moment!
Thus judgment and punishment has never produced the desired results.
That is why judgment and punishment is insanity!

What is the best way of thinking about it so people are motivated to behave morally?

'Thought' = ego!
If you think that you cannot 'trust' the bible, it is so much more sane to never 'believe' what you think!
Your thoughts will always, eventually, lead you astray!
It is your 'thoughts' that is often portrayed as the little red devil perched on your shoulder, whispering sweet and hellish nothings into your ever ready and straining ear!
Thoughts come and go, let 'em! *__-

People are already behaving 'morally'! What you see all over the world, is the result of such insanity!

'Ethics', on the other hand, are not coming from (the duality of) ego, but from unconditional Love/Enlightenment!

'Ethics' are; "Do not do to others what you wouldn't want done to you!"
It is completely unconditional, independent of the passing 'situation'...

How to 'teach others' ethics?
We're all watching, "be the change that you want to see"!
Become unconditional Love/Enlightened and guide us!

'Judgment' is just more dualistic, schizophrenic insanity!

Love is the dissolution of ego.
The Universal solvent of the Alchemists that transforms the 'base-metal' and leaves the 'pure gold'!.
Enlightenment.

True, unconditional Love is ALWAYS Known by It's unconditional Virtues; Compassion, Empathy, Sympathy, Gratitude, Humility, Charity (charity is never taking more than your share of anything, ever!), Honesty, Happiness, Faith...
ALWAYS!

Suffering people will naturally be attracted to such qualities in another person. They will come to you asking what's up!
Then, we continue to share... *__-

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

I don't think the threat of eternal damnation is really working anymore. How bad can Hell actually be? It can't be worse than living in New Jersey.

Unconditional Love = God = Heaven!
Here! Now!
Anything other than unconditional Love = sin = insanity = Hell!
Here! Now!

All forms of health; mental, emotional, physical, spiritual... is based on the ability to Love!

There is no 'morality' in Love!

I defeated religion when I was only 3 years old through its logical inconsistencies . That said all my religious fiends come to me for advice. I seem to live by the golden rule. Do unto others as that shall have done to thyself. My family isn't religious but, makes a lot of sense to me.
I'm not totally naive and recognize those who are deceitful and I calmly remove them from my life, after giving them a chance to change

a reply to: Bleeeeep

But is that fire and spirit (water) to be taken literally or is it an allegory for energetic body states that can be felt as heat and vibration that might manifest in a bliss state?

a reply to: namelesss

Objective morality exists even if all things can be connected and measured on quantum level thru entanglement. Just because I cannot measure fully thru entanglement how a behavior ego predatory propagates suffering thru the whole do not mean there are not ego predatory behaviors I should not do.

Moral relativism leads to blindness and less awareness of ones part of suffering making excuses for the ego when it behaves insanely.

There are ways to increase well being for all and minimize suffering. Tolerating ego predatory behavior only enables the souls creating suffering.

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.[1] "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Thus judgment and punishment has never produced the desired results. That is why judgment and punishment is insanity!

Removing a rapist who cannot control himself/herself from society putting them in insane asylum/prison is reducing suffering to the whole making society free of insane souls giving the insane time to evolve to something more stable.

Love the insane soul enough to stand up to it and hinder it from making an insane mess, that it will have to spend a very long time fixing.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: namelesss

Objective morality exists

No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion.

Moral relativism leads to blindness and less awareness of ones part of suffering making excuses for the ego when it behaves insanely.

All 'morality' is relative to conditions, in the eye of the beholder!
Morality is a matter of Perspective, and "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics.

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1.[1] "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

Sounds like he's advocating the attempt to extinguish fire by the addition of gasoline!
And he's not much of a philosopher.
The 'superior' (in their own ego), 'tolerates' the 'inferior' (in the insanity of their ego).

Absolute morality leads logically to absolute intolerance.
-Michael Shermer (The Science of Good and Evil)

Tolerance as related to morality, remains insanity!
You are not 'superior' to anyone, other than in the vanity of your own imagination/thoughts/ego!

"Thus judgment and punishment has never produced the desired results. That is why judgment and punishment is insanity!"

Removing a rapist who cannot control himself/herself from society putting them in insane asylum/prison is reducing suffering to the whole making society free of insane souls giving the insane time to evolve to something more stable.

One can 'remove' a predator from the ability to predate on others without torture and insanity.
Perhaps healing, rather than punishment, for something over which he has no choice might be better for us all?!
You must have missed that part, or is 'revenge' so deeply ingrained (more insanity) that you cannot conceive of any options?

a reply to: namelesss

One can 'remove' a predator from the ability to predate on others without torture and insanity.

So there is a judgement for a predatory behavior that is ethically right for you that hinders the predatory from the ability to predate while minimizing the suffering on all including the predator.

By saying that we should not take revenge on the predator and that there is a better way are you not showing that these 2 views when implemented creates different levels of suffering to the whole?

Here are 3 different scenarios
Case 1: Allow predator to run wild in society. Measure the suffering.
Case 2: Remove the predator from society and torture the predator. Measure the suffering.
Case 3: Remove the predator from society and do not torture the predator. Measure the suffering.

With measuring the best case should be chosen or other cases be created that can be tested and verified to see what brings most well being in society including the predator.

If there is no right and wrong and all is subjective why do you ethically say that we should not be allowed to be predatory and torture a predator? If all is the same subjective judgement, then every thing we do creates the same level of suffering.

To make it part of the thread. Yeshua taught sheeps and goats where souls are judged by their action not what they think they are. Those not this indicate objective measurement of a souls behavior?

a reply to: dfnj2015

So with that premise, I want to propose a question. What if instead the original message of salvation was not an individual's eternal damnation, but a person's children. What if the original message were the way you achieve salvation for your children is by living a good moral life. Would people act differently?

If this was the case, it'd only take one ancestor to condemn all the rest of their descendants to eternal damnation. We'd all of us be doomed by now.

Why is morality important? What is the best way of thinking about it so people are motivated to behave morally? I don't think the threat of eternal damnation is really working anymore.

I believe a large part of morality is a luxury according to circumstance. Today I won't steal food because it's immoral. Tomorrow I could be destitute and stealing food becomes justified to survive.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Tomorrow I could be destitute and stealing food becomes justified to survive.

To some souls it is like that. To other souls it is not justified to be immoral no matter the consequences and not allow others to silence them. Socrates drinking poison as an example.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Perhaps

Have you ever considered the moral conundrum of the soldiers and the baby? It goes something like this and actually happened:

10 people are hiding in an underground cellar from soldiers who will torture and kill them if they are discovered. You are the mother of a new baby and the baby is beginning to cry. You can smother the baby and save the other eight lives or the cries attract the soldiers and you all die.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I'm not sure the threat of Hell and eternal damnation is really motivating for most people.

Salvation or freedom is now.
But the individual lives in time - and this is why they are damned.

There is no time - horror stories can appear now about 'what is not happening'.
Remove all of 'what is not happening' and liberation is here, now.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Morality can come from the social contract. How to act is an important philosphical question and has existed long before and after christ.

Look up Kant he has a lot to say about morality and ethics.

He came up with the categorical imperative which to paraphrase says before you act consider your action as a universal action. If everyone did this action what would the out come be. If everyone lied there would be no truth etc. He also talks about treating people as an end and not as a means to an end. It's pretty involved but check it out sometime. Or any philosophers discussion of morality. Spinoza, voltaire, locke, Plato anyone. www.philosophypages.com...


The social contract is enough reason for moralit to exist without super natural reasons.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Perhaps

Have you ever considered the moral conundrum of the soldiers and the baby? It goes something like this and actually happened:

10 people are hiding in an underground cellar from soldiers who will torture and kill them if they are discovered. You are the mother of a new baby and the baby is beginning to cry. You can smother the baby and save the other eight lives or the cries attract the soldiers and you all die.

Just because we can create scenarios where it is hard to know objectively what creates the least suffering and scenarios where you cant win and have to sacrifice people do not mean we should put ourselfs in those situations. If one of these scenarios manifests then we have already failed as society to create a minimized suffering outcome.

If we say that humanity have evolved how we behaved as a society/collective 2000 years ago and that this change have lessened the suffering then there have to be worse or better ideas to create a society. That means that there is an objective way to measure how following different ideas makes society better or worse that should be measured on individual level.

Some people take unconditional love to far in extreme where non judgement of predatory behavior become enabling of predatory behavior. To be really non judgement, means to not limit suffering at all, no matter how insane another soul behaves. Seeing all behavior as loving and equal and not intervene no matter how insane a soul behaves and what damage happens. That also means not to intervene and teach a soul with predatory behavior that there is a better way and give it tools for self control for instance meditation.

Strange how some people choose to be on duality extremes "total intolerance" vs "total tolerance" instead of choosing the middle path between these extremes. By also saying everything is subjective "the people who want to test thru observation and measurement and create theories that might look deeper than religion by backing up their claim with data" are not allowed to make progress in this field and humanities potential to evolve is decreased.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Hiya, I think you missed my point. Your first reply suggested a belief in souls that won't ever commit an immoral act. By posting the baby scenario, I had hoped to provoke the possibility in your mind that your position tended towards absolutes.

Just because we can create scenarios where it is hard to know objectively what creates the least suffering and scenarios where you cant win and have to sacrifice people do not mean we should put ourselfs in those situations. If one of these scenarios manifests then we have already failed as society to create a minimized suffering outcome.

If we're accurate, society has always failed although we could spend all day discussing the degrees of failure. For example, English society is failing to a much lesser degree than it did a 100 years ago. Sometimes we don't have the luxury of choosing which situations we put ourselves in as they can be thrust upon us. Thinking of Tibetans under China or non-Nazis under Third Reich Germany.

Some people take unconditional love to far in extreme where non judgement of predatory behavior become enabling of predatory behavior. To be really non judgement, means to not limit suffering at all, no matter how insane another soul behaves. Seeing all behavior as loving and equal and not intervene no matter how insane a soul behaves and what damage happens. That also means not to intervene and teach a soul with predatory behavior that there is a better way and give it tools for self control for instance meditation.

I'm not sure your point is coming across well. Maybe it's my turn to misunderstand? Are you saying individuals and/or societies should step aside and allow others to act however they choose to? I'm a middling person and appreciate the value of self-reflection for everyone. At the same time, I do not believe in stepping aside when others are being predatory and damaging people, groups and/or societies. You seem to be suggesting their need to meditate and grow has greater value than the other souls who would be damaged by them.

Have I got that wrong?

a reply to: Kandinsky

If we're accurate, society has always failed although we could spend all day discussing the degrees of failure. For example, English society is failing to a much lesser degree than it did a 100 years ago. Sometimes we don't have the luxury of choosing which situations we put ourselves in as they can be thrust upon us. Thinking of Tibetans under China or non-Nazis under Third Reich Germany

True. .

I'm not sure your point is coming across well. Maybe it's my turn to misunderstand? Are you saying individuals and/or societies should step aside and allow others to act however they choose to? I'm a middling person and appreciate the value of self-reflection for everyone. At the same time, I do not believe in stepping aside when others are being predatory and damaging people, groups and/or societies. You seem to be suggesting their need to meditate and grow has greater value than the other souls who would be damaged by them. Have I got that wrong?

I am trying to make a point that non judgement and believing that all moral is subjective and cannot be objectively defined with measuring, is a slippery slope, that enables predators instead of standing up to them and helping them become something better. It is connected to nameless post about total tolerance.

All 'morality' is relative to conditions, in the eye of the beholder! Morality is a matter of Perspective, and "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamic

Your text makes me think we have similar ideas that total tolerance of all behavior is a mistake.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

Ahh I see

Yes, we're probably in agreement that total tolerance isn't a good idea.