3Guys1Hammer - A Question for the religious

[leo-rcc]

Of course, that's why it's funny.

[rjh4 is back]

My proposition is that both Christianity and Secular Humanism approach morals from a subjective viewpoint. I failed to make my point clear:

Secular Humanism trys to build a moral code based on what is best for society according to data obtained from that society

Christianity trys to build a moral code based on interpretation of scripture.

Both methods rely on the interpretation of humans so they are both subject to the flaws from human interpretation.

Rhizo

I must agree that both methods rely on the interpretation of humans and, therefore, they are both subject to flaws. However, one method is based on human interpretation of human interpretation (secular humanism) and the other is based on human interpretation of the Word of God (Christianity). And since God and His Word is the ultimate authority in my world view, I think Chrisianity's moral code is closer to reality (what it should be) than that of secular humanism, which should not shock anyone.

[Rhizomorph13]

I see it differently, one is human interpretation of data collected from present day society the other is human interpretation of words, written by humans, from the perspective of a much different culture. Any way you slice it, there is no way to claim objective understanding of revealed truths so the best answer is to bin the whole idea of revealed truth and rely on experimentation to test an idea against reality. Realize I am not even ruling out God here, just saying that morals would be best set through testing what works best in current day society. I would say that religion has been doing this for years to combat negative public opinion. After all, when was the last time you heard of a child being stoned to death due to insolence?

Rhizo

[rjh4 is back]

Any way you slice it, there is no way to claim objective understanding of revealed truths so the best answer is to bin the whole idea of revealed truth and rely on experimentation to test an idea against reality.

I don't know...

The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself. See Luke 10:27-28.
The Bible also says at Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

So this is the revealed standard of how we are to interact with those around us. I certainly do not see how testing any of my own actions against "reality" gives a better result than testing them against the revealed standard. In fact, doing the former might very well give entirely different results than the latter depending on how I might determine what is "best for society".

For example, I start thinking that I don't like someone and want to beat them up and I know the person is weak and will submit and not cause any problems because they are afraid. So I decide to test this against reality and go ahead and beat the person. I find that I was correct and the person is too afraid to say it was me or do anything about it. So I determine that such behavior is ok...after all society accepts the concept of "survival of the fitest" and so my behavior should ultimately be good for society.

On the other hand if I rely upon the revealed truth as set forth above, I can immediately see that such actions would not be appropriate because no matter which way I cut it, I know I do not want to be beat up so I shouldn't be doing it to others. In this way, I can even do the testing before I act. Furthermore, it is not that difficult in most instances to compare another person's behavior to this standard and see if their actions would correspond with it. Seems like a much better way to do things than experimenting and testing against reality and it seems to me that the standard of revealed truth in this area would apply just as well in any time of history.

After all, when was the last time you heard of a child being stoned to death due to insolence?

I thought we were talking about interpersonal relationships and the appropriateness of certain behavior not legal issues for a society and appropriateness of applying certain consequences in the society.

[LEDO]

I think Rhizo is on to something....

Since the moral code followed by religious folk was in fact written by men, wouldn't we all then de facto be secular humanist? And religious folk just not realize they are secular humanist?

[Rhizomorph13]

Ledo,

Thanks for crystalizing my idea. I can be a little amorphous in my speech.

Rjh4,

I was talking about Leviticus 20:9 "'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head."

The church obviously does not follow this rule anymore because it does not agree with the moors of society.

And as for this:

I thought we were talking about interpersonal relationships and the appropriateness of certain behavior not legal issues for a society and appropriateness of applying certain consequences in the society.

I was speaking about morals in general and see no reason to limit the conversation.

Cheers,
Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

Of course, that's why it's funny.

Oh I see....

Well I didn't and still don't 'get it' Damn I missing something here lol.

EvF