Where do Christians (and other religious folk) get their morals from?

[bamf]

You can always have your cake and eat it! Why else would you have cake? I for one don't enjoy just looking.

 

[Jana]

Yeah, it should be all or nothing, litteral interpretation of the text or accepting the moral zeitgeist of the times.

So, where it is written that should be all or nothing? Why do you think that, why do you think that is only way to see things? Why? Do you always look at things in black or white? If not, why not - because: it's all or nothing...

 

[Quinlan]

So, where it is written that should be all or nothing? Why do you think that, why do you think that is only way to see things? Why? Do you always look at things in black or white? If not, why not - because: it's all or nothing...

If you want to justify something to society you need to have some reasonable basis for it. If you are anti-homosexual because the bible says so, then you need to be consistent with that method and follow everything the bible says. If you want to make a stand against homosexuals based on the bible, then like Satya has said you should also take a stand against women and for the return of slavery because those things are equally justified by the bible.

Ultimately it comes down to what is acceptable to society? A case against homosexuality has equal (in)validity as a case against women or a case for slavery.

 

[bamf]

If you want to justify something to society you need to have some reasonable basis for it. If you are anti-homosexual because the bible says so, then you need to be consistent with that method and follow everything the bible says. If you want to make a stand against homosexuals based on the bible, then like Satya has said you should also take a stand against women and for the return of slavery because those things are equally justified by the bible.

Ultimately it comes down to what is acceptable to society? A case against homosexuality has equal (in)validity as a case against women or a case for slavery.

So by this logic someone who sympathizes a political party/candidate just agree with them on all issues no matter what? They aren't allowed to pick what ones they agree with? (Not that I'm advocating using the bible for hate)

 

[Quinlan]

So by this logic someone who sympathizes a political party/candidate just agree with them on all issues no matter what? They aren't allowed to pick what ones they agree with? (Not that I'm advocating using the bible for hate)

Well then you are saying that any action is justified based on whether you personally like it or not.

 

[bamf]

Well then you are saying that any action is justified based on whether you personally like it or not.

You failed to acknowledge my post in regards to your post on it's either fully agreed upon or fully rejected...

but yes in a sense, if you personally like something it is personally justifiable. Homophobes justify their position on their own opinions and preferences, in fact we all do.

 

[Quinlan]

You failed to acknowledge my post in regards to your post on it's either fully agreed upon or fully rejected...

I don't see a clear relation between the two, one is about personal choice/opinion and the other is about what is deemed as socially acceptable.

but yes in a sense, if you personally like something it is personally justifiable. Homophobes justify their position on their own opinions and preferences, in fact we all do.

So from there, should feeling personally justified about something be enough for it to be justified by society?

If someone feels justified in murdering someone because the other guy teased him, should that be considered acceptable by society?

 

[bamf]

I don't see a clear relation between the two, one is about personal choice/opinion and the other is about what is deemed as socially acceptable.




So from there, should feeling personally justified about something be enough for it to be justified by society?

If someone feels justified in murdering someone because the other guy teased him, should that be considered acceptable by society?

But are all aspects of politics socially acceptable? What about abortion and what about stem cell research? In the democratic party (of America because that's what I'm familiar with) the platform is pro choice and pro stem cell. Does that mean to think one is right, one must think the other is right? What makes either or both of them socially acceptable?

And no, personal justification doesn't make something social acceptable. Never would I say that nor did my post imply that.

 

[just me]

If you want to justify something to society you need to have some reasonable basis for it. If you are anti-homosexual because the bible says so, then you need to be consistent with that method and follow everything the bible says. If you want to make a stand against homosexuals based on the bible, then like Satya has said you should also take a stand against women and for the return of slavery because those things are equally justified by the bible.

Ultimately it comes down to what is acceptable to society? A case against homosexuality has equal (in)validity as a case against women or a case for slavery.

I have to totally disagree with that.
First of all, I must state I am not for homosexuality. I do not hate homosexuals, but neither do I hang out with them. I cannot imagine how clean or unclean it must have been 2500 years ago. I cannot imagine how healthy or unhealthy it must have been 2500 years ago. I do not use the "because the Bible tells me so" reason for my feelings. Therefore, I do not have to suppress any argumentative synopsis of the Bible because of my feelings. I see it as inordinate affection. I also wish it to not be in my face to see. There are those that feel the same way about me because I feel that way I am sure. We disagree and that is that. Do what you will, just keep it out of my face is the way I feel about it. I have been to the home of a person like that with friends before and was well received and well treated. The person came into the room where I was watching TV while they were all doing whatever with their porn movie going. I was told I was different than anyone else that had been to his house and did not come there to use him or his money. I was offered and given a drink. I was shown where the key was hidden and offered to visit his mansion any time I wanted because I was different and he liked that. I was not coerced into the other room and was respected for my stance. That is my memory of any interaction and I would like it to stay that way. I never went back, though I feel the offer and statement to be genuine. I do not hate that person, I just do not agree with the way they live. That person is alright with that, so why the hatred?
However, being a Christian, I believe health to be a major role in the teachings of the Bible. I believe it must have been an abomination 2500 years ago if a man lie with a man as with a woman. I believe as many other Christians believe that slavery was a major part of civilization 2000 years ago. The pyramids were built by the use of slavery. There were also what were called priestesses in Delphi that stood above boiling water with most likely an opiate in the water and murmured murmurings while the other people were there worshipping their gods. Trade was very active between Corinth and Delphi, as was travel. Women were standing up in the church at Corinth murmuring things in the new church and it was causing confusion. Some of them claimed to be speaking in unknown tongues. Paul had to address these problems and did so with the help of God, as it is shown to be some of the most explicit words ever written by him. It was methodically written as if an attorney wrote it. The letter stated to let the women keep silence in the churches. It went on further to address the claims of unknown tongues and did not stop there. If any person speak in an unknown tongue, let there be an interpreter. If there is not an interpreter, let them keep silence. All prophesy is done for the edification of the body(the church members being the body of Christ which Christ is the head of the Church). Let all things be done unto the edification of the body. He stated God was not the author of confusion. There were supernatural things happened with the speaking of tongues, or known foreign languages, during Acts when the Holy Spirit of God was given to dwell within mankind. It was done so all could fully understand without confusion what was happening. There were those there that spoke other languages. I will not get further into speaking in unknown tongues here.
That was to be done with the understanding also.
Women's rights and slavery were quite a recent change in the history of civilization. Women could not even vote in this country when it was new. Slaves were used to build rice levees and ditches for rice irrigation all over the coastal areas of the south. There is an island in the SE of the US where the owners, a very well-to-do family, of the slaves had to burn down the houses of their slaves to force them to leave. The slaves had it made and did not want to leave. Sound inhumane? It is fact. Not all slaves were treated like vermin. What is so difficult about it to accept slavery and women's rights? It has only changed a mere century or two ago.
Prayer is healthy; it is a form of meditation. The ten commandments were healthy. The New Covenant is healthy. Resting a day is healthy. Giving is healthy. Nurturing is healthy. Love is healthy. This has taken a lot of my energy. I prayed before attempting a response. I prayed for guidance and truth. I prayed that I speak my mind and heart as well, and I now pray anything I have said does not offend anyone. I know people are gay; I'm not stupid. I have a cousin that is gay, and I would be a liar if I said I was not concerned for them.....and for their family. I am certain that individual, knowing me, would not feel badly toward me for saying anything I have just said.....or their family.

 

[Quinlan]

In the democratic party (of America because that's what I'm familiar with) the platform is pro choice and pro stem cell. Does that mean to think one is right, one must think the other is right? What makes either or both of them socially acceptable?

If the justification you are using for one, is accepted by society/government etc. and the justification for the other is exactly the same, then that should be accepted as well.

If "because the bible said so" is accepted by society as reasonable justification for one thing, then anything that falls under that justification will be considered acceptable by society.

And no, personal justification doesn't make something social acceptable. Never would I say that nor did my post imply that.

I agree, so picking and choosing what you like and don't like from the bible is personal justification and should therefore have no influence on social justice.

Picking and choosing = Personal justification (invalid)
Litteral interpretation = Potentially valid
Ignoring the bible = Potentially valid

That is why when it comes to what is socially justified it is all or nothing.

 

[Satya]

I see it as inordinate affection. I also wish it to not be in my face to see.

There is an elephant in the room that you are ignoring when you make this argument. What is in your face? Is allowing a gay couple to be married in your face? Is allowing a gay couple to adopt children in your face? Is allowing gays to have the same kind of public displays of affection that heterosexual couples practice in your face?

 

[bamf]

If the justification you are using for one, is accepted by society/government etc. and the justification for the other is exactly the same, then that should be accepted as well.

If "because the bible said so" is accepted by society as reasonable justification for one thing, then anything that falls under that justification will be considered acceptable by society.



I agree, so picking and choosing what you like and don't like from the bible is personal justification and should therefore have no influence on social justice.

Picking and choosing = Personal justification (invalid)
Litteral interpretation = Potentially valid
Ignoring the bible = Potentially valid

That is why when it comes to what is socially justified it is all or nothing.

Ah, but the question therein lies are morals personal or determined by society? And what makes society valid and the individual invalid?

Personally I hate it when people use the justification "because so and so said so" but what makes it any less moral? Are morals up to the individual or imposed by their environment and surroundings?
If morals are individual, does that make them right?
If morals are environmental, what makes it right to have them forced onto the individual?

 

[bamf]

And to just me, what allows one to decide what should or shouldn't be practiced when it causes no harm, in this case homosexuality. Why should we all be governed by the same set of rules for love? And who has the right to tell someone that they cannot love someone or even something?

 

[Quinlan]

Ah, but the question therein lies are morals personal or determined by society?

I'm not sure if you've heard of the term Zeitgeist? According to Wikipedia it is "the spirit of the age and its society". I think this is a huge influence, what do your parents find morally acceptable? your friends? your peers? - These things have a great influence I think. It takes a big shock to shift the Zeitgeist, one example being the american civil war, the majority now feel slavery is wrong (compared to in the past when it was widely accepted).

Personally I hate it when people use the justification "because so and so said so" but what makes it any less moral?

We are social beings, as a society we must deem what is acceptable. If you wish to change what is accepted by society you must have good justification. The validity of such a justification is usually judged by the government, which we elect to do so.

 

[just me]

There is an elephant in the room that you are ignoring when you make this argument. What is in your face? Is allowing a gay couple to be married in your face? Is allowing a gay couple to adopt children in your face? Is allowing gays to have the same kind of public displays of affection that heterosexual couples practice in your face?

Women fought for women's rights and gained it. People fought to abolish slavery and it was abolished. That was my argument. The argument about the Bible was unfounded.
If I choose to not have something in my face, it is not in my face. The rest is moot. I chose another room and was accepted there by a homosexual. It was therefore not in my face. Why can I now not be accepted in my other room as I was once before? Maybe that individual had qualities others might not have?

 

[just me]

And to just me, what allows one to decide what should or shouldn't be practiced when it causes no harm, in this case homosexuality. Why should we all be governed by the same set of rules for love? And who has the right to tell someone that they cannot love someone or even something?

As I already stated, women's rights and slavery has already been down this path of legal battles. Both were met with resistance. This homosexual subject is now being taken into the legal battles by those that embrace it. It will be met with opposition. Everyone does not agree or there would only be one color car and one size pillow. Fight your battles. Do not think I set the rules.
Do not think everyone will agree. I hear there is legislation to make it illegal to own a primate as a pet. That was all over someone sleeping with an ape as their pet and having their face torn off. I am against making laws about everything there is. Don't tell me I cannot sleep with my dog in the bed, though.

 

[bamf]

As I already stated, women's rights and slavery has already been down this path of legal battles. Both were met with resistance. This homosexual subject is now being taken into the legal battles by those that embrace it. It will be met with opposition. Everyone does not agree or there would only be one color car and one size pillow. Fight your battles. Do not think I set the rules.
Do not think everyone will agree. I hear there is legislation to make it illegal to own a primate as a pet. That was all over someone sleeping with an ape as their pet and having their face torn off. I am against making laws about everything there is. Don't tell me I cannot sleep with my dog in the bed, though.

I'm sorry, I think I may have misread your post and missed part of your point when I was responding to it.

 

[just me]

I'm sorry, I think I may have misread your post and missed part of your point when I was responding to it.

I seem to do that every now and then...please forgive me. Good night.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Have you ever heard the moral proposition, "Treat others as you would like to be treated". It predates Christianity by centuries. It's known in the Golden rule and it even appears in the Bible as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Basically every "moral" you just cited could be reduced to that premise. The Bible didn''t teach man any morals that we didn't come up with ourselves before it existed. In fact, the Bible seems to do a pretty good job of distorting the basic premise so as to support constructs like sexism, homophobia, ect.

But you assume those ideas do not stem from any sort of religion. Christianity is not the first religion, nor was it the last. Nor was it unique. Religion tends to stress these things. There is a definite trend in that.
And I'm more inclined to say that the Bible does not distort these, but rather interpretation of the Bible.

Atheism is a religion in itself in that argues that there is no God without proof that there is no God. I asked if you knew any agnostics who held to those conceptions. Do you? Could you cite some famous ones? I can cite dozens and dozens of Christians who do so you should be able to come up with at least one or two agnostics who do. Please share them and show me how unfounded my arguments are.

I could give two damns about famous people, to be perfectly honest. I don't know any famous Christians to cite from, and nor do I know of any famous agnostics. However, if you can produce Christians that held those conceptions, I'm sure you can also produce Christians that DON'T hold those conceptions. I find it intriguing how much you are condemning a group of peoples by the accusation that they condemn groups of peoples.

The word "homosexuality" was coined in the 19th century. Are you saying that homophobia has only existed for 2 centuries?

Nope, because I wasn't referring to the word or term "homosexuality," I was referring to the physical manifestation the term describes.

So your argument is that tradition is the basis of sexism, homophobia, etc? If scriptures like the Bible are to be treated as the infallible word of God then you seriously can't be arguing that they need to be interpreted in context to the traditions that existed at that time. Obviously God wants everyone to live as they lived 2,000 years ago. If an unmarried women is raped then she needs to be put to death, if a man sleeps with another man then he needs to be put to death, if a child dishonors his parents then he needs to be put to death, if someone works on the Sabbath then he needs to be put to death, if a slave misbehaves then his master must only beat him hard enough that he dies a couple days after the beating, and on and on. That is the word of God in the Bible and so that is the moral thing to do.

I never said that scriptures are to be treated as the infallible word of God. That is an interpretation of the Bible, and one which I do not follow so strictly. The Bible, regardless of whether it was originally the true word of God, was entrusted to the fallible hand of man. It was written by man; it was handed down by man; it was translated by man; and thus, it is no longer "infallible." There is VERY much a cultural influence, especially because many of the prophets were, in fact, men, and thus were products of the societal norms of the time (some people believe otherwise, but if you've read the Bible, you'd notice that some prophets emphasize different things and have different viewpoints. They were men, and their ideas should be taken in that context).

It's not new in the least. Before Christianity and Islam began their crusade to convert the world, most of the world was agnostic. They are militant religions, based on militant people, that spread militant ideologies and militant traditions. Read the Old Testament.

That wasn't so much agnosticism as it was forms of paganism. Either way, there were most often definite, defined religious ideals, and the culture that conquered was the culture that defined the rules. Each culture might have had different gods, or worshiped different things, or were more or less strict than the other cultures, but there were most often defined entities.

It says right in the Bible that all there is is the word of God. There is no middle ground. You are either with God or against him. It is black and white, good and evil. The Bible is conformity. Christianity is conformity.

But what is the word of God? It really is not so simple, you see The Bible is not all the word of God; you have to be able to tell what is "true" and what is swayed by man. There are many multitudes of interpretations off that book even WITHOUT taking that point into context.
How much do you have to be "with" God to be really with him? Is blinding going through the motions of religion "belief" in the entity? How do you determine who is worshiping God, or who is idolizing the Pope or the Bible or the statue of Jesus placed in the church?

It's really not as black and white as that. If it is, then it is conformity. Most people conform.

You want to throw the Bible out of Christianity?

No, I want to throw the ignorance out of Christianity.

 

[Satya]

That wasn't so much agnosticism as it was forms of paganism. Either way, there were most often definite, defined religious ideals, and the culture that conquered was the culture that defined the rules. Each culture might have had different gods, or worshiped different things, or were more or less strict than the other cultures, but there were most often defined entities.

Pagan simply means not Christian. Modern agnostics are pagans. They don't acknowledge the Christian god. But I agree, the most militarily successful cultures have always been the ones who ruled, and their religion was always the one that dominated the land.

It's really not as black and white as that. If it is, then it is conformity. Most people conform.

I acknowledge that you feel the Bible needs to understood and interpreted in context to the times.