Morality

[tackattack]

tackattack,

If you say modern Christianity is about recognising r having faith in the salvation via Jesus C, this and only this, are you saying too they ignore the verse: Faith, without works, is dead?

Sorry this thread kinda of lagged so I never answered. No indeed faith without works is dead, works without faith accomplishes little but both are seperate from salvation. There is the "getting in the door" portiion then the "earning your keep" portion. To accept and follow Christ is the first step to salvation. Then following in the teachings and the word is a continuance of belief/faith visa v works in faith.

---

Yes Christianity is the most well known in the western world still I believe (I think we're down to 70% or so), but it's also fair to say it's the most misconstrued. The most common doctrine among Christians is the Nicene creed (ref)here in the West. Simply stated to be Christian: 1, believe in God, father; God, son;, God, Holy spirit. 2, Jesus died so that we're fogiven, being baptised allows you to accept his grace. 3, God, father created the earth and that's it.
It implies a lot of things, but that's the only requirements.

No where in here are the 10 commandments, or the beattitudes, or anything else moralistic. These 3 things are the dogma of faith (not morality) of Christianity. Many different sects of Christians have further doctrines to include codes for morality in their Dogma, but then you have to use the more specific branch of Christianity. Christianity in itself doesn't have any moralistic dogma, but is often assuemd to, since most branches have some form in their doctrine. Punishment is incorrectly asserted and implies moral right and wrongness. The creed doesn't say you'll go to hell for not believing.

Yes, those are the only requirements but inherent in them is one very important fact- that the bible is the inspired word of God. This is simply true- the bible is literally the only source material for the idea. And along with that comes some pretty hefty restrictions for discussing morality- for instance, belief in the bible seems to imply the belief that any who do not believe (accept Christ as a savior) will be punished by at least third degree burns for, well, eternity. (Matthew 25:41). Also included, then, are in fact the 10 commandments. And New Testament Jesus doesn't rescind those, either (Matthew 5:18).

Let me try to better explain the reward system. A lot of religions believe that you should do good to earn rewards or to pay your way out of hell or a bad karmic cycle. Christiainty, as a generality, assumes that we are all already born evil and into a world that is our own hell where "good" Christians don't belong and should be as little a part of as necessary. To put it more succienctly a Christian shouldn't typically worship out of fear of reprisal or reward, but out of awe and majesty. Christians who worship to get into heaven or avoid hell are adding personal fear and bias to the religion that is humanly interjected to increase tithing and other selfish reasons of church leaders. I'm not a Christian because I want to get into heaven because it's a great place and full of rewards, I'm a Christian because I want a closer communion with the creator of all things after my Spirit leaves the material realm. I hope that explains it a little better.

Ok, that's fine. But even this raises a moral issue- if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he always knew exactly who was going to get to that point; why does he need to put anyone through it?

I guess I should explain more in detail my views of morality's foundation. Evolution is a start. Let's say some types of morality fundementals I'll discuss are, guilt, fear, self-preservation, doing good for others, doing good for self, etc. Primitive man would have probably more animalistic tendencies prior to moral constructs. Clubbing our women over the head to take what we want and all that imagery. Somewhere some cavegirl meant enough to her caveman that he felt "bad" for clubbing her, or it was easier to have a conscious mate, etc. This started primitive man thinking about his own personal action and the consequences of them. Recognition of consequences led to the recognition of guilt and defined it into existance. This particular example shows the sexual selection in evolution, but similar things led to identification of other parts of self.

This assumes a lot. If this is true, when we look at our nearest relatives, other great apes (or, spread the searchlight, monkeys and other primates), we should one hell of a lot of rape going on, since certainly they do not have morals. Yet we do not- they do it differently, with mating rituals etc. I don't know why you think "animalistic" tendencies indicate completely remorseless beings.

Being upwardly mobile apes now on 2 feet with less physical defences leads us to developing tight knit communities. Letting the weak die off to propigate the stonger would be animalistic tendencies. While altruism later in the progression sees us taking care of each other at the detriment of self, the animalistic tendencies lead to preservation of self. My moral value set say not only to protect others, but to protect myself through natural instincts. If we as a society didn't believe in this moral construct there you be no difference between manslaughter 3 and involentary manslaughter or insanity defences in the justice system. Utilitarianism is moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome and consequentialism is definately a key in helping us define what is wrong and right. It is based on the "greater good" outcome and are morals from a perspective that is selfless.

This first bit seems to stem from the idea of group selection, an evolutionary school of thought which is simply wrong. It would not make sense, evolutionarily speaking, for a trait that promotes total selfishness to propagate throughout a gene pool. A gene which promotes kin selection, on the other hand, would spread quickly. But it's not as if the "preserve only self" gene would have much of a chance past a generation or two- think about it for a second. It would be by definition self-removing.

The categorical imperative is about reason and necessary. While it is true hypothetically that if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something, categorically I can say I must drink. Survival is intrinsic to life and assumed. Reasoning the necessity of personaly what needs to be done fpor survival while minimizing the affect on others is also a key to the definition of morality (wiki).

The categorical imperative seems to be more of a way to classify morality, or establish the edicts of morality, not to establish morality itself.

Peer influence of reasoning individuals I feel is also a developing factor. As we personally define what is morally relevant to self and compare that to utilitarian and altruistic constructs of what is best for everyone else we develop a communal definition of right and wrong. this comes from debate and definiton sharing of individuals. I can't see 2 cavemen saying "Well that's a good point you made, I think I'll use that in my definiton". But I can imagine as their reasoning skills develop that their subconscious is saying this and thus the influence of peer discussion on moralistic foundations.

I agree absolutely that interacting with others influenced the development of morals, in that groups without a common set of morals would probably not last very long.

(edited to add more) Sorry for leaving out the question. Religion helps us define an absolute moral truth rather than a subjective personal moral truth. It has changed over time to try and include more people in the religion, much to it's detriment.

"I think what makes more sense is that churches be organized around the particular vision that God has entrusted to the leaders, and that the church remain true to that vision.... Individuals, particularly younger generations, are saying, 'you know what, it's got to be genuine. It's got to be authentic. It has to reflect who I am, what I need, where I'm going.' So you are going to see all these other models: the house church; the cyber church; the boutique churches; faith communes; eschatological forums; marketplace affinity groups and so forth." -George Barna
Barna continued, "I don't think that Christ died on the cross to create a stable institution. He died on the cross to help us understand that the world is a wicked place and we are wicked individuals at our bottom level. We have to be transformed and there is only one way of that happening, but that is not happening in America today."

Religion has got it wrong.. it's not about the community of believers, but about a personal relationship with God. However to learn about such things one needs an institution. The institution of Chritianity and religion changes to try and reach more people and changes it's basic tennants which is counter-productive. I don't claim that theist's are better than atheists moralistically.. in fact there was a recent survey whre Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists/agnostics.(ref I can't view from work) But do you really think religion has had no positive impact on moralistic relativity?

You claim that the church changing its basic tenets is detrimental to the church- hold on a sec. If the church hadn't shed its untenable practices and dogmas over time, it would not exist. As acceptable practices and morals have evolved in society, the church has been forced to change to keep up. Think witch-burning, corporal punishment, slavery, etc. Britain, for example, outlawed slavery long before the church of England relinquished its foreign slaves.

So no, I do not at all think that religion or the church have positively impacted "moralistic relativity." Show me one instance where the church/religion has actually improved, not begrudgingly accepted, changes to dogma/practices/moral ideas.

---

1. Yes the assumptions are from the bible that God is the creator and Jesus was the son, etc. The bible was the main written source material at the time. Of course he didn't rebuke the 10 commandments, they were inspired by his father. It is not the only source material and that's why we believe in the holy spirit. It's a sort of checks and balances for the errors man incorperates into religion.

2.As far as the moral ambiguity of omnipotence, etc. here are my thoughts. We'll discuss this in 2 areas free will and God's love. I feel we have free will as an excercise in evolving us from animalistic species to more in line with his original plan of us in his image. We can't just know everything and expect us to construct moral right and wrong after. We have to first define our constructs of right and wrong and societal values etc then we can know more and philosophy and science has helped a great deal in that. Secondly we as humans only have our construct of Love as we know it from our experience. You've heard the term my love is a flame or burning love? That's because Love to us costs something, it's sacrifice of time , materials, effort, etc. God's perfect love is none of those things and is impossible for us to grasp as long as we have to reference our existance to our space-time.It's truly an assumption that God does no evil and on Faith. I can see things I deem Bad years later having positive results in my reality or in the world view. We label things as God's allowing this to happen, which is absolutely right. We don't live in a paradise, we were kicked out of there. This is a testing ground to see if we can moralisticaly and physically evolve past our animalistic natures.

3. The rape thing. Once we recognized our free will over our natural instincts we knew we could choose what we wanted and not just what was needed for survival. What ape wouldn't want 30 hot little chimps servicing his every whim. However they are content to do what is necessary for survival and the occasional pleasure. We've become spoiled by being able to consciously see our causations and outcomes and manipulate them to fufill needs. To live in a group requires that rules of conduct also evolve to minimize friction between members. Any individual that would act badly towards other members would find themselves exhiled, which would be a death sentence. Indeed, there are such individuals. We call them criminals. IDK that's just a wild guess I'm not very farmiliar with the intricacies of evolution.

4. I didn't claim that. I claimed that the church changing it's tenants is detrimental to the original tenants. If however theese original tenantswere not in line with what God wanted then they should be changed, based of spiritual need, not monetary os societal need.

5. “results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins. Surprisingly, our sophisticated moral sense of what is right and wrong may develop from a newborn’s innate preference for what tastes good and bad, what is potentially nutritious versus poisonous.” Adam Anderson on a study he participated in.

I'll get to the rest later I have to go.