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

[Satya]

Which is a perfectly legitimate argument. I'd say so as well; morals are basically natural to man, as any real culture has had some sort of moral code. However, religion is also almost natural in this way; almost any real culture has begun with religion as well. So, by that argument, religion is rational I'm not going to push that argument though; however, I will say that it's difficult to distinguish whether religion is a key in defining morals or whether morals and religion are defined independent of each other, since both tend to evolve naturally and very early in any human civilization.

Religion is rational if your purpose is to force your beliefs on others and to indoctrinate children. Religion is the organization of a few individual's principles of morality into a single governing system. Religion is conformity. It sets standards by which it expects everyone else to live. The fact that I can define morals outside of religion is proof enough that morals do not come for religion. Religions come from individuals who wish to impose their own particular set of morals.

 

[Satya]

Why does it anger some of you that people are Christian (or any other religion that is similar, like Judaism, Islam, etc.)?

It doesn't anger me at all that people are Christian. It angers me that people who are Christian use their beliefs to justify some actions but not others. For example, an anti gay rights activist who is Christian and uses the Bible to support those beliefs, but who doesn't seek to endorse slavery or other such concepts that are a part of the Bible. In essence, what angers me are cherry picking Christians.

If you feel you should be free to choose on what you base your morals and to have your own beliefs, why can we not?

I'm also free to question the basis of your morals just as you are free to question mine.

Why do you feel the need for us to argue and offer tangible evidence why we have found peace and happiness, just because it isn't the same reason as yours?

When your happiness and peace begins to impose upon the happiness and peace of others, that is when it is time to offer tangible evidence as to why you have that right. For example, if you are an anti gay rights Christian and you are happy and at peace with not allowing gays to marry or adopt, then you are squelching somebody else's happiness and peace, and as a result, you will either have to back up your reasons with evidence or be prepared to change.

It all seems a bit fascist to me.

To the contrary. It is perfectly democratic. What is fascist is assuming that you should be free to hold your religious beliefs above others despite how they may affect the happiness and peace of others.

 

[Shai Gar]

Wiccan is a religion. I can be friends with a wiccan.

 

[WickedPod]

I'm also free to question the basis of your morals just as you are free to question mine.

*Yes, but I don't feel that attacking people regarding the basis for their morals is the right way to go about it. I don't attack others, or even question, the basis for theirs but I'm more than happy to give an answer if you ask me. But, I don't like for someone to treat me condescendingly or argue with me when I give them a personal answer to their question.

When your happiness and peace begins to impose upon the happiness and peace of others, that is when it is time to offer tangible evidence as to why you have that right. For example, if you are an anti gay rights Christian and you are happy and at peace with not allowing gays to marry or adopt, then you are squelching somebody else's happiness and peace, and as a result, you will either have to back up your reasons with evidence or be prepared to change.

*Where have I squelched anyone's happiness and peace by believing the things I believe? You have been treating me as if I do, simply because of the title "Christian", instead of listening to what I've been saying. You also need to understand, or at least accept, that you will never fully understand why I see the Bible as I do unless you are in my own shoes.

To the contrary. It is perfectly democratic. What is fascist is assuming that you should be free to hold your religious beliefs above others despite how they may affect the happiness and peace of others.

*Where have I shown that I hold my religious beliefs above others? I'm happy for anyone that has found happiness and peace, no matter how they got there and I know I've made that perfectly clear.

.

 

[Viscid]

If you take offense to argument, then you take offense to the pursuit of truth.

 

[WickedPod]

If you take offense to argument, then you take offense to the pursuit of truth.

I know the truth, my own truths. I was in pursuit of the truth for a long time. But, "truth" is different for each individual. Just as you don't want others to force their morals or lifestyle on you, I don't want you to force yours onto me. If everyone in this world would respect each other that way, it would be a much, much better place.

 

[Quinlan]

Has anyone been attacked in this thread? I'm losing track of it.

Religious people don't anger me, religion does anger me quite a bit at times when it intrudes on things that should be secular (if we are going to be fair and really want others to also have peace and happiness) and when it provides a safehouse or breeding ground for depravity (pedofilia, homophobia, extremism etc.).

Wickedpod: if you feel these things don't apply to you, then they don't apply to you so you can disregard them. If the rest of religion was as benign and accepting as you seem to be, I'm sure the world would be a lot better place.

Just for the record, I'm not attacking the roots of people's morality just exploring where exactly those roots actually are (I suspect most of them come form outside of the bible).

Edit: Is the very suggestion of them not being from the bible an attack? Just wondering.

 

[Viscid]

I know the truth, my own truths. I was in pursuit of the truth for a long time. But, "truth" is different for each individual. Just as you don't want others to force their morals or lifestyle on you, I don't want you to force yours onto me. If everyone in this world would respect each other that way, it would be a much, much better place.

I agree completely. I didn't read the entire thread which I should've.

I'm not at all religious, but I also respect the beliefs of religious people. You can't generalize whether someone is 'good' or 'bad' based on whether or not they're religious.

I don't like discrimination, but I cannot argue against their discrimination if it's tied to a fundamental belief. I can identify contradictions, such an acceptance for the teachings of Jesus Christ against their hatred towards Muslims. Arguing things like that is constructive, while arguing their fundamentals, such as 'Abortion is wrong because God says all life is scared.' or 'Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible.' isn't.

 

[WickedPod]

I agree completely. I didn't read the entire thread which I should've.

I'm not at all religious, but I also respect the beliefs of religious people. You can't generalize whether someone is 'good' or 'bad' based on whether or not they're religious.

I don't like discrimination, but I cannot argue against their discrimination if it's tied to a fundamental belief. I can identify contradictions, such an acceptance for the teachings of Jesus Christ against their hatred towards Muslims. Arguing things like that is constructive, while arguing their fundamentals, such as 'Abortion is wrong because God says all life is scared.' or 'Homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible.' isn't.

I definitely agree with every single thing you just said.

My personal defense, however, is that I haven't shown myself to be discriminatory at all to warrant having that thrown in my face - which you haven't, at all. My argument is most definintely not with you, since I totally agree with you and you haven't taken stabs at me.

Looking back at my life, I never have made a statement "blankity blank blank, because the Bible/God said so." I use the Bible as inspiration, not as a rule book and I don't HAVE to use it as a rule book simply because I call myself a Christian. To me, Christianity (or any other "religious title") is a state of mind/being, not a set of guidelines or rules by which one must act or believe. I honestly believe that the intention of the Bible was to be inspirational and not as a set of rules, but people have twisted or misunderstood it's intention. That's my own personal belief and I honor anyone's belief that that statement is not true. Actually, saying that would most likely get a lot of Christians upset with me. But, I refuse to go against or compromise my own beliefs and I would never expect anyone else to. If those of you that try to make me out to be close-minded or lost actually knew me, you wouldn't think that of me. I guarantee that.

 

[Azure_Knight]

_____ is rational if your purpose is to force your beliefs on others and to indoctrinate children. _____ is the organization of a few individual's principles of morality into a single governing system. ______ is conformity. It sets standards by which it expects everyone else to live. The fact that I can define morals outside of _____ is proof enough that morals do not come for _____. ______ come from individuals who wish to impose their own particular set of morals.

There are many things that could fit into what you have described there. What about teachings on nationality, heritage, gender roles, etc. Couldn't many things taught to children at a young age be considered indocrtination? People are the ones responsible for all of it; if anything, blame people for the things that they do in the name of ______ or under the label of ________.

 

[Chopsifer]

Has anyone been attacked in this thread? I'm losing track of it.

Religious people don't anger me, religion does anger me quite a bit at times when it intrudes on things that should be secular (if we are going to be fair and really want others to also have peace and happiness) and when it provides a safehouse or breeding ground for depravity (pedofilia, homophobia, extremism etc.).

Wickedpod: if you feel these things don't apply to you, then they don't apply to you so you can disregard them. If the rest of religion was as benign and accepting as you seem to be, I'm sure the world would be a lot better place.

Just for the record, I'm not attacking the roots of people's morality just exploring where exactly those roots actually are (I suspect most of them come form outside of the bible).

Edit: Is the very suggestion of them not being from the bible an attack? Just wondering.

In all honesty the way the topic was started could have come off as smug to some people. Almost as if one were saying, "Oh, pooh pooh on you and your primitive ways. Using a silly old book to base moral grounding."

I know that you wouldn't have meant it like that, but it seems too often that misunderstanding of motives is what a lot of arguments to break out.

I'd say the roots of peoples morality is religion so long as it is defined as the search of some type of meaning, however deep or superficial, in the fluctuating, absurd Universe around us. Religious organizations such as the ones that have been discussed so far (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) are designed to help cope with the pain and the suffering we go through in this search for meaning, and maybe even aid us somewhat in providing temporary answers that likely will eventually be doubted.

Do people sometimes get too much help from these organizations? Or too little help? I'm not exactly sure, as I cannot know what it is like to be on their personal search for meaning.

 

[Quinlan]

In all honesty the way the topic was started could have come off as smug to some people. Almost as if one were saying, "Oh, pooh pooh on you and your primitive ways. Using a silly old book to base moral grounding."

Well I would be very surprised if someone did come out and say "yes I take my sense of right and wrong directly from what the bible says". My assumption was that most christians don't interpret the bible litterally (that seems almost impossible because of the litteral contradictions in the text). I'm digging a bit deeper and saying that by the time someone gets to the point of interpreting the bible their sense of right and wrong is already pretty well established.

I'd say the roots of peoples morality is religion so long as it is defined as the search of some type of meaning, however deep or superficial, in the fluctuating, absurd Universe around us. Religious organizations such as the ones that have been discussed so far (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) are designed to help cope with the pain and the suffering we go through in this search for meaning, and maybe even aid us somewhat in providing temporary answers that likely will eventually be doubted.

Doesn't that feel like a bit of a cop out though? It would be nice if I could just accept things because they make me feel better but that would seem insincere, like I was creating or accepting delusions (things without any grounding in reality) because I like the way they make me feel. Something about that doesn't sit right for me.

 

[Chopsifer]

Doesn't that feel like a bit of a cop out though? It would be nice if I could just accept things because they make me feel better but that would seem insincere, like I was creating or accepting delusions (things without any grounding in reality) because I like the way they make me feel. Something about that doesn't sit right for me.

How do you know that everything you know has a grounding in reality? Other than the whole, "I think therefore I am" thing, we still could very well be some sort of brain in a vat. I'd like to think that there IS a reality, but can we ever truly know it? I mean, as far as I know, taking all things skeptically, the world might as well end as soon as I die, so why not just live it up and not care about who I harm with my hedonistic lifestyle?

 

[Quinlan]

How do you know that everything you know has a grounding in reality?

Perhaps "reality" is inaccurate, maybe a "shared reality" makes more sense, when we strive for objective truth we are striving towards things that we can truly share and agree upon. If we ignore a goal of objectivity we're all just heading off on tangents, nothing can be shared, rules cannot be established without some objective standard to meet, it's anarchy basically. We can excuse anything, we cannot convict someone for murder because the murderer "believes" they did not do it, and we have to accept that belief as valid.

 

[bamf]

Reality doesn't exist, it's all just a dream. God himself told me. You're all just creations of my mind.

Deal with it.

 

[Chopsifer]

Perhaps "reality" is inaccurate, maybe a "shared reality" makes more sense, when we strive for objective truth we are striving towards things that we can truly share and agree upon. If we ignore a goal of objectivity we're all just heading off on tangents, nothing can be shared, rules cannot be established without some objective standard to meet, it's anarchy basically. We can excuse anything, we cannot convict someone for murder because the murderer "believes" they did not do it, and we have to accept that belief as valid.

Hmmm.. And we find this objective, shared reality and goal through hard, knowable facts? (ie, I may not know what purpose this object may have, or even if it may have a purpose, but I do know that it is sitting in space)
If this is what you are saying, I agree completely. We need to learn to be more apt to reach out to each other, despite systems of belief, because we're all stuck in this absurd life together. We could definitely make it a little less absurd, unfair, and cruel if we could see that we can identify with one another through this meaninglessness.

Is that the type of thing you are saying? If so, I agree whole-heartedly! But I still fail to see why the post was only directed towards "Christians (and other religious folk)"

 

[Quinlan]

Is that the type of thing you are saying? If so, I agree whole-heartedly! But I still fail to see why the post was only directed towards "Christians (and other religious folk)"

Because there seem to be some assumptions that religion is the source of morality, and that religious figures are more qualified than others on issues of morality. I wanted to explore whether the source of morality for religious folk really is so different from the morailty of the non-religious.

 

[Chopsifer]

Ah.. I understand now. I'm curious about your conclusions. I have a feeling about them, if have reached any yet--All the same, very interesting.

I think you might enjoy Phillip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect. It is a psychology book, and a pretty long read, but it talks about similar kinds of things but examines them in different lights.

From what I understand and what I gathered from the book a lot of modern psychologists hold that moral speculation doesn't necessarily hold much bearing on how people will act given a moral dilemma. Factors like current emotional state and social context have a lot more to do with actual morality; that is, actually moving in space to do a moral action rather than making the justification that watching "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is just as much community service as ACTUALLY helping others rebuild homes.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Religion is rational if your purpose is to force your beliefs on others and to indoctrinate children. Religion is the organization of a few individual's principles of morality into a single governing system. Religion is conformity. It sets standards by which it expects everyone else to live. The fact that I can define morals outside of religion is proof enough that morals do not come for religion. Religions come from individuals who wish to impose their own particular set of morals.

Hate to say it, but I think the person who most feels religion is "forced" in this thread is yourself, perhaps because of your reaction to it. Your arguments tend to be vehemently non-religious, sometimes almost defensively so, but in reality most people do not have any wish to "impose" nearly as much as all that. Religion is just as much conformity as is government, as is society, as is media; in fact, I could argue that religion can be more rewarding than some of those.

If you can conclude that what is natural is rational, then you are concluding that religion is rational because religion exists almost parallel with society. That is an objective observation. Now, it's true that religion has it's more undesirable parts, but it also has the desirable in good chucks as well; this goes for all major structuring institutions of culture and society. The only thing is, religion tends to be the institution that stresses and defines morals, and also the one that condemns if those morals fall short. It has been since the rise of Christianity (at least! Probably before) that morals were nearly dictated by the church. Historically and objectively, this is so, as Christianity played a HUGE defining role in Western civilization. Whether you like that or not is a different matter.

Wiccan is a religion. I can be friends with a wiccan.

So can I Wiccans are very interesting people. Unfortunately, many people associate the wrong idea with wiccans (although that is becoming increasingly less of a problem). And usually, if you're wiccan, you say so, or you say Pagan if you are combining those beliefs with others. I've known people that say either when asked.

 

[Jana]

I 've promised few answers to some questions here. I didn't forgotten, I am still cooking them in my head