religion and morality

[champu 1]

Quote

I was actually hinting at the millions of abortions since the 70's for the sake of convenience. They surely weren't all for the sake of rape or incest.

This is an example of relative moralism at its finest, which also goes against the evolutionary thinking of furtherence of the species.

I think you're trying to personify evolution and suggest that it has or should have goals. It doesn't.

Besides, abortions are a case where everything will work out perfectly! Those that choose, and don't feel any obligations towards their unborn fetus, will have an abortion and take one step back away from the gene pool.

[billvon 2,433]

>I was actually hinting at the millions of abortions . . .

Yeah, that was pretty clear. That's a relative rather than an inborn moral; we have no genetic predisposition against it since it's a pretty recent development. Now, if we keep the ability to perform abortions for another million years, then evolution starts selecting for the people who _don't_ ever get abortions (if that trait is heritable, of course.)

>This is an example of relative moralism at its finest

Agreed. I wouldn't knock moral relativity, though. It lets us justify nuking 350,000 innocent civilians while condemning WMD usage against a few thousand. It lets us bemoan losing 3000 americans on 9/11 but justify the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis in our war. It lets us rationalize capital punishment. Heck, it's allowed us to fight every war we've ever fought.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yep, no hospitals, orphanages, great works of art, schools of higher learning. Yep, a whole lot better place.

I'm going to have to request elaboration here. It sounds as though you believe that without religion we would have no hospitals, great art, or schools of higher learning.

That seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[steveorino 7]

I'm not saying we wouldn't have ANY, but answer this. Who began the earliest hospitals, orphanges and universities? Who patronized the great works of art in the renaissance?

steveOrino

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I'm not saying we wouldn't have ANY, but answer this. Who began the earliest hospitals, orphanges and universities? Who patronized the great works of art in the renaissance?

Hospitals? Not sure. Every culture has been concerned with health. I'm not sure who began the first institutions dedicated to health.

Universities? Depending on your definition, I would say Socrates / Plato / Aristotle, or even earlier. I would be surprised if ancient Babylon didn't have schools of higher learning.

Great works of art in the renaissance? Since art is much older than the renaissance, I'm not sure it is a relevant question.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I don't have any idea.

this is the truest statement on God you have ever posted in this forum....

congratulations.. now you just need to put it in the proper context and let go of your silly bronze age misconceptions...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm kinda dissapointed though, back in the day it used to be a lot of fun arguing with you Paj. You were the one guy on your side who could always be counted on to really explain your position and argue the points people brought up.

Nowadays its all just fire and brimstone and "You will be judged!"

I’ll try and be more reasonable. If you & I were on an airplane, I knew something was wrong with the engine, and that we were going to crash, would you want know about the problem so you could put your parachute on? I’m just trying to tell you that we’re going to have to jump. You are going to die and you don’t know when. I’ve got my parachute on. You don’t. You can’t just wish it all away and say that you don’t believe in the law of gravity. If you jump without your parachute, you are going to die and there is a second death after judgment lasting for eternity.

I’m really not trying to preach fire & brimstone to you. If what the Bible says it true and hell is a reality (which it is), you are in big trouble. You are going to die and face judgment for every thought and deed in this lifetime. You are already guilty. Your conscience should testify to that based on your inability to live up to God’s moral law (10 Commandments) and “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). God has more love for the world than you can possibly fathom. However, it is a perfecting love and not a pampering one. The cure hurts but it is absolutely necessary.

Here’s another. You’ve gotten really sick. You go see the doctor. He does some tests and determines that you have cancer that, if left untreated, will be terminal. Would you rather he not tell you the problem since you’re going to die anyway and just give you some pain medication to make you feel better during the time you have left? Or would you rather him tell you, in detail, what you’re up against in order to convince you of the seriousness of your illness so that you’ll accept even a painful cure and follow through with it until you’re healed?

This isn’t fire & brimstone. I’m not sitting here screaming at you that you’re going to hell without a reasonable explanation of why. I’m not trying to scare you. I’m just telling you the reality of the situation. I don’t want your money and I’m not trying to recruit you into some church denomination. I don’t even expect you to all of a sudden post in this open forum that you’ve just had some radical conversion experience or not. I’m just trying to get you to consider an important issue which concerns you personally. That’s all. You can disagree with me all day long if you want to. However, you have knowledge of the truth now. With knowledge comes accountability. The more knowledge you gain, the more accountable you become.

such a silly analogy... as you KNOW none of what you claim.. you BELIEVE... which is something completely different..

PS. i've italizied some words you SERIOUSLY need to revisit the definitions of...

but of course using your own personal definitions for matters of faith and biblical interpretation is a common failing among Xtians...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Quote

I'm not saying we wouldn't have ANY, but answer this. Who began the earliest hospitals, orphanges and universities? Who patronized the great works of art in the renaissance?

Hospitals? Not sure. Every culture has been concerned with health. I'm not sure who began the first institutions dedicated to health.

Universities? Depending on your definition, I would say Socrates / Plato / Aristotle, or even earlier. I would be surprised if ancient Babylon didn't have schools of higher learning.

Great works of art in the renaissance? Since art is much older than the renaissance, I'm not sure it is a relevant question.

It always surprises me how much some people are willing to specifically credit to religion. I saw a published email debate between Sam Harris and some religious US TV pundit who credited Christianity alone with developing (I shit you not) mathematics, astronomy, universities and (brace yourself) democracy!

I hadn't realised jesus was alive in 500BC....

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An omnipresent god could start it everywhere, at all times.

An omnipresent god could make snapping turtles fly out of my ass....but he didn't. Your arguments are nonsensical. Who's being unreasonable?

Well, that's an interesting statement coming from someone who believes in the existence of supernatural beings with infinite powers without a shred of objective evidence.

The Bible as a basis for believing in your God is no stronger than using the Iliad and Odyssey as a basis for believing in Zeus and Athena.

Look around you - you see the handiwork of Zeus everywhere in the wonders of creation.

BURN IN HELL HEATHEN!!! how DARE you deny the one true FSM!?!? you shall be cast from his noodly presence

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Not everyone is a child of God.

might want to check with your Authority on that....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[steveorino 7]

I never said all universities or the first Universtities were from christianity, but without Chritianity, you would not have Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals. In Tulsa the Three largest hopitals are catholic as with many cities, (St. Jude, etc. The first schools in America were typically church school houses. The first orphanges in America were catholic. The great renaissance painters were mostly employed by the Catholic church. the list goes on.

steveOrino

[Zenister 0]

it is easily plausible that all of these events, people and institutions would have developed in the absence of Christianity as well... (it is very telling that the same activities you mention when conducted OUTSIDE the context of the prevailing Religion were all subject to persecution and death. Those with the inclinations in that direction had little choice in who/how they worked/studied etc...)

they are all part of cultural evolution and development, Christianity was simply the prevailing social organization of the time, this does NOT make it a requisite for any of those developments to have occurred..

should we make a list of all the 'bad' things religion creates as well as the 'good'?

do you believe the scales would equal or weigh in Religion's favor though out the course of human history?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[billvon 2,433]

>but without Chritianity, you would not have Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.

Right, and without Islam, you wouldn't have the subjects of math or chemistry to teach in them.

>You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals.

And without atheists you wouldn't even know that our life is based on DNA - and we'd be decades behind in medical research.

I think it's safe to say that without religious people of all denominations, AND atheists, we wouldn't have any of the things we take for granted today. Religion has been both a benefit and a hindrance to the sciences, education and health care throughout the years.

[steveorino 7]

Yep, you are so very right. Although we are an odd bunch we need each other as we each bring much to the table.

Besides, without atheist who would preachers try to save?

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

>You wouldn't have al the Catholic Hospitals.

And without atheists you wouldn't even know that our life is based on DNA - and we'd be decades behind in medical research.

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists?

steveOrino

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

I'm not saying we wouldn't have ANY, but answer this. Who began the earliest hospitals, orphanges and universities? Who patronized the great works of art in the renaissance?

Who invented theater, music, painting, sculpture, abstract logic, algebra, trigonometry, engineering, libraries, astronomy, literature, codified laws, agriculture, metallurgy, ceramics, glass, writing, the wheel....

Hint - not Jews or Christians.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[philh 0]

I think you have a simple view of evolution. we have evolved big brains and they have enabled us to improve our lives so much that we are able to make choices on our propagation that no other known species can make. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that rules this out.

[philh 0]

Plato had schools of learnings , art has existed for thousands of years before christ. Your local hospitals may be Christian, so what? your local area is probably Chrstian. In Europe , especially Scandinavia the hospitals are secular, what does that prove?
The renaissance painters were commisioned by the Church beacuse the Chruch had a lot of money. Lets just remind ourselves of the amazing advances in art, science etc that occured in ancient greece, Rome and egypt. for example the Great Library of Alexandria stood as an outstanding source of knowledge in the ancient world. What happened to it? Flavius Theodosius the roman emperor converted to Chrsitianity and immediatley had it destroyed. following the conversion of the Roman empire we had a 1,000 years of chrstian rule which is univerally known as "the dark ages". After just over 1,000 years Chrstianity started to relax its total control over all aspects of european life and thats when you had the renaaisance and the enlightment. Thats when you had real medicine instead the Christian aproach used for th black death which got everyone into churches so thy could spread the disease and hence kill millions.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

In Tulsa the Three largest hopitals are catholic .... The first orphanges in America were catholic. The great renaissance painters were mostly employed by the Catholic church. the list goes on.

It certainly does. What about some of the largest, multi-multi million dollar mass settlements of claims brought by hundreds of little boys molested by clergy, the thousands of yet other still-pending claims of sexual abuse at the hands of clergy, and the history of systematic, institutionalized enablement of rapists of children by clergy abusing their trust? Now that doesn't negate your point, of course, but it does demonstrate that, even in modern times (i.e., aside from the Inquisition and persecution of the sciences), there is also a very dark underbelly.

-----------

P.S. - I note I'm responding to your post #1700. If the subject weren't so serious, I guess I'd say you should be pied. I do enjoy your thoughtful posts greatly, even if I don't always agree with them. There's a selfless, credible moral thread to them (well, most of them ) that I do admire.

[steveorino 7]

Pie me? Please make that a cream pie!

I want to say again what I was responding to.

Sweetmoose said we'd all be better off without any religion.Now at first glance when you take in the autrocities committed in the name of religion (crusades, inquisition, genocides, terror, etc) plus the abuse of religion (pediphyle priest, hypocritical preachers, etc) you start to agree.

However, then you must throw out the good too. without trying to say religion was the first, the best or the end to all means, it did influence positively things like the creation of hospitals and works of charity (think Salvation Army), build great schools of higher learning, educate the masses (at least in USA), build orphanages, patron the arts, etc.

I'm known in my circle of pastoral friends as being a little anti-religous and very much pro Jesus.

steveOrino

[Royd 0]

was actually hinting at the millions of abortions . . .

Quote

Yeah, that was pretty clear. That's a relative rather than an inborn moral; we have no genetic predisposition against it since it's a pretty recent development.

Are you telling me that with the millions of years of development, that we [especially women] do not yet have an innate desire to protect the unborn?
Are you saying that, knowing or making a decision about right or wrong simply has to develop over eons of time?

The act of an abortion for the sake of convenience, whether desired by the woman, or encouraged and coerced by the man[the guilt should be placed where it belongs] takes a hardening of the heart i.e. the conscience.

If morality were an innate quality, there should never even be a need for such discussions as this. We would do the right thing at all times.

Religion aside, if a parent isn't giving a child guidance, they will be running amuck in no time.

You only have to watch such shows as Wife Swap, or Super Nanny to see the results of children who have been allowed to have free rein of their lives.
You have 5yr. olds controlling the tempo of the household, or you have teenagers coming and going with no restrictions or responsibilities.

I put the blame for the desire to destroy the moral code that has been used for centuries squarely on the liberal socialists, who think that the idea of a god is an affront to their personal freedom.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

If morality were an innate quality, there should never even be a need for such discussions as this. We would do the right thing at all times.

So you do disagree with Pajarito and Steveorino then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Royd 0]

Quote

I think you have a simple view of evolution. we have evolved big brains and they have enabled us to improve our lives so much that we are able to make choices on our propagation that no other known species can make. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that rules this out.

Your argument is that we have evolved to the point where morality is ingrained in our very essence. We have no need of a higher authority, whether it be the Law of God or the Law of the land. We will do the right thing.
How do we suddenly[remember, evolution takes millions of years] go from considering the life of an unborn child to be a precious thing to something that we can throw in a trash can by the millions, in only two or three generations.
By making a choice that goes against this ingrained goodness tells me that we have a free will to choose the path that we take.

This also tells me that morals must be taught from parent to child generation after generation. If the cycle is broken, society starts to become dysfunctional.

We now have people who don't give a second thought about stealing some elderly person's life savings with the click of a mouse.

Sounds to me like someone spared the rod during the formative years.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Pie me? Please make that a cream pie!

Right now you should be thankful you didn't say that in Bonfire!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Royd 0]

If morality were an innate quality, there should never even be a need for such discussions as this. We would do the right thing at all times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

So you do disagree with Pajarito and Steveorino then?

No. We actually have an inner conflict which a person's eyes must be opened up to.

The Law of God is written in our hearts[minds], but as fallen beings we are naturally rebellious and want to do what we want, when we want without regard to the consequences.

You never have to teach a child to do the wrong thing.

Your argument is that through the passage of time we have observed that society functions smoothly under certain conditions and it has become part of our DNA. We have no need for moral or religious teaching.

I say that each generation needs a smack down from the one before them in order to ingrain the rules of civility.

I believe that common sense and the Bible will bear me out.

It only takes one generation deciding that the rules don't apply to them[moral relativity] to screw up future generations.