Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[robvalue]

Christian morality is horrible. It's just that civilised christians cherry pick it.

The OT stands. Christians are very welcome to throw it away if they want, I'm not going to argue. Yet they want to keep the slavery endorsement and the punishment for girls being raped. And stoning children to death. Why, again?

At very best, the OT is evidence that God WAS a monster of the highest order, does change his mind, is capable of huge evil and is a liar. Even if he's now all good, I would have thought the above warnings, in his own book, written by him, would be enough of a concern as to his "morality".

Would you follow a reformed serial killer?

[Lek]

Christian morality is horrible. It's just that civilised christians cherry pick it.

The OT stands. Christians are very welcome to throw it away if they want, I'm not going to argue. Yet they want to keep the slavery endorsement and the punishment for girls being raped. And stoning children to death. Why, again?

At very best, the OT is evidence that God WAS a monster of the highest order, does change his mind, is capable of huge evil and is a liar. Even if he's now all good, I would have thought the above warnings, in his own book, written by him, would be enough of a concern as to his "morality".

Would you follow a reformed serial killer?

The OT does stand and was fulfilled in Christ. The question always goes back to whether christians are under the OT law. The old testament people were under God's wrath, and after Christ, we are under God's grace. A day or two ago I presented 3 or 4 verses from scripture to demonstrate that christians are not under the old law. God isn't reformed. He was always morally righteous. I never made any kind of statement saying that God was once evil and then he changed.

[Esquilax]

In my mind there isn't sufficient justification, but there probably is in their minds.

Rationality isn't a matter of opinion.

Parents are concerned about keeping their wealth in the family and having someone to care for them in old age. Culturally, daughters belong to their husband's family. And I figure they justified the one child law as being for the good of the many by keeping the population down.

... And you can't cover for one irrational concept with a second one, even if it's a cultural tradition.

As far as secular morality goes, it's pretty much up to society to determine what is morally right, as in my China example. If the majority of a society determine that it's okay to kill your newborn child, it can pass for good morality.

No, it can't. It certainly is up to a given society to determine its morals, but that doesn't mean they're binding, correct, or even morally efficient. You can drum up majority support for heinous moral ideals, that doesn't mean they're the best that society could be doing. Like most theists, you're mistaking "self imposed," for "entirely relativistic," and that's just not the case: regardless of what any one society decides, they still inhabit the same reality as everyone else, and we can still make valid determinations about which moral ideas are better or worse.

Christian morality is just good. Please don't give me some gory example of something from the old testament and tell me they were following christian morality. Tell me what Jesus has taught me to be morally good and bad.

I love that you asked that I don't give you an example outside of what you've cherry picked, that's hilarious.

But just sticking to Jesus, do you think it's morally good to endorse slavery, or to intimidate people with whips? It's actually really trivial to show that even your narrow idea of what counts as christian morality is not good.

The OT does stand. The question always goes back to whether christians are under the OT law. The old testament people were under God's wrath, and after Christ, we are under God's grace. A day or two ago I presented 3 or 4 verses from scripture to demonstrate that christians are not under the old law. God isn't reformed. He was always morally righteous. I never made any kind of statement saying that God was once evil and then he changed

So all the stuff god did in the Old Testament was moral? You just somehow think it's okay because it doesn't apply to you? How does that work? How does "you guys don't have to do the evil shit I spent centuries making other people do!" make the evil shit okay?

[robvalue]

You think all the stuff God ordered and did in the OT was righteous?

Was it righteous to command the slaughter of entire cities, and have the virgins kept alive for "booty"? Was it righteous to drown all the animals in the world, and all people, because he wasn't getting what he wanted?

I could go on all day...

Assuming you have read the OT, it's hard to find a single page where he doesn't do something psychotic. Are you defending all of this?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Hey guys,

Just curious to get your opinions on the emergent domain of 'secular spiritualism' vs. classic religious orthodoxy and how they relate to moral reasoning? It has frequently been posited that morality may only be deduced from a doctrine (or word of God) and that without so would leave humanity in a moral stupor. It would be interesting to hear some opinions on such topics as it relates to my thesis. Have also left my thesis link down the end if anyone has any interest in participating.

Thanks.

<SNIP>

A moral stupor? Well that's just absurd. Here's an argument that even Christians would be foolish not to accept.

Luke 10:25-37 describes Jesus speaking to experts in law. One of these "experts" asks Jesus how they are to behave in accordance with God's will. Jesus tells the story of a man who is beaten and robbed and then left in the street. A few people pass by this suffering stranger; a priest, and a Levite and both ignore him and neither show him compassion. Finally, another man walks up and he happens to be a Samaritan. This (according to what I've read) made him the least likely one to stop and help because the Jews treated them like lesser people. I don't remember Jesus saying what the victim was but the point was that this "Good Samaritan" did not care to ask and helped this stranger. He took care of his wounds, and then paid to get him a room at a nearby inn. On his way out, he paid the inkeeper to look after him.

This is an example of morality that occurred before the bible was ever written. This, if true, was an example of a stranger looking after his fellow man and the bible didn't tell him to.

Morality is built into our conscious intuition and we call it a conscience. We recognize that there are better and worse qualities of life and that our actions and decisions have an impact on which one we are building. "Secular Morality" is offensive. Atheists are people capable of empathy and we value the power of reason being combined with it. That's all anyone needs to be moral.

[robvalue]

The best defence I have heard against this is that it didn't mostly actually happen (optional testament). Which is true, but you don't often hear that from a christian. It was that grasshopper guy... Where did he go? I may have been slightly overstating his case. He was a little slippery on it.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lol...

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. He killed a whole town of people except the guy (and his family) who offered his two daughters up for gang rape.

And of course, it happened again, in a different town, which was totally real and not just the same made up story accidentally getting in again due to lack of material or something.

How you can even begin to defend such actions without resorting to "God can do what he likes, might makes right" is beyond me.

[Lek]

You think all the stuff God ordered and did in the OT was righteous?

Was it righteous to command the slaughter of entire cities, and have the virgins kept alive for "booty"? Was it righteous to drown all the animals in the world, and all people, because he wasn't getting what he wanted?

I could go on all day...

Assuming you have read the OT, it's hard to find a single page where he doesn't do something psychotic. Are you defending all of this?

You know what? I've reached an epiphany. I respect you and Esquilax and I can understand your positions. It struck me that if I was an atheist, I would believe the same thing as you do. It would be a no brainer. If you don't believe in the effects on our world of the sins of Adam and rest of us, which you don't; and you don't believe in eternal life, which you don't; you also don't understand why I believe God was morally right in his actions. You also don't believe that God is the creator and has the right to make his creation as he sees fit. I say we punish violators and, once they've done their time we restore their rights. If we execute them, they don't get a second chance. But if God punishes someone with an earthly punishment and then restores them and gives them eternal life, you don't accept that concept as being loving and just at the same time. I think we're guilty and you think we're not. We have no common ground, so the debate goes on and on ad nauseam.

The thing is, you guys have caused me to thoroughly reconsider my positions and refine my faith. I wanted to face all the questions, so I can truly say that this forum has been a good thing for me. What's a person to do? Sorry for the rant. Next time I'll take it to R'yleh. I need an excedrin!

[ether-ore]

Reincarnation could be considered cyclical. Instead of ceasing to exist, you are reborn into a new body without the memories of your past life. Evolving would be similar to cyclical but you can be reincarnated into higher or lower lifeforms. And possibly to non-existence.

Thank you for the explanation. I didn't think of those perspectives because having read about them in eastern religion literature, I don't believe in that kind of thing and had set them aside.

Cause and effect does NOT come from me. It is the observable fact of reality. It is not subject to my beliefs just like gravity is not subject to my belief of it.

I understand that what you say is true, but you're still not seeing the definition of subjective. In the following comment you tell me about what it means to offend the law (I'll get to that in a minute). The same thing applies. Ideas don't create themselves, people created them. That something is considered by you as an observable fact isn't what makes it subjective. You observe something and from that, you formulate a conclusion, which if true, becomes a standard. But the formulation of the idea comes from a person which is what makes it subjective. The thing that reinforces its subjectivity is that other people have different ideas.

Breaking the human laws is an offense to the citizens that made that law. It is not an offense to the law, just like I cannot offend the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Laws don't have feelings, people do.

I concede the point, but I will modify you response just a bit. It offends those who abide the law and not necessarily those who created it.