Religion and Morality - Poles apart.

bluecell99

A bit of a long rant coming up I think but there seems to be an increasing hankering back to the good oul days espoused by a vocal fundamentalist movement both here and abroad.Some conservative commentators analysis of Irelands current social problems is depressingly simplistic;add weekly mass and insist on two parent families and the situation will improve dramatically.

Their asumption that liberals are ducking reality by not explicitly encouraging two parent families is itself a prejudice.

Some such families were severely dysfunctional and violent,something both church and state historically failed to appreciate and acknowledge,leaving many defenceless women and children trapped behind a veneer of conformity .There is scant regard paid to this fact and this has resulted in high rates of alcoholism and suicide not to mention mass emigration from rural areas - not always based on economic factors.But as long as the couple were "married in the eyes of god" and in the "holy roman church" then alcoholism,sexual gratification with children,beatings,mental torture and gratuitous violence were all ignored.

Religious conservatives must realise that religion was only ever an expression of moral sense and NOT ITS FOUNDATION.

The moral sense required to underpin the social eduction of kids should focus on ethics and morality in themselves and not the goddam religious window-dressing.

The conservatives are shrewd enough to the sensitivity of the debate to recognise that authoritarian religion is not the answer.The type which was practised here for decades and duped the gullible masses into believing that organised religion and morality were inextricably linked and effectively one and the same thing.NOT SO.

What we are now witnessing is the catasrophic loss of confidence in the moral codes previously based on religion,primarily because of the complete discrediting of its clergy and their exposure as a club which shields numerous highly dangerous paedophiles and exposed countles children across the world to rape and torture.

Surely respect for others is based upon compassion and this is a human trait and NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

Its time that fans of organised religion took their heads out of the sand and faced reality.Their continuing defence of organised religion as the only bullwark against a breakdown of society is doing a grave disservice to all those who have suffered from abuse and does nothing to advance the cause of proper standards of behaviour and respect for people.

If they had as been as quick in confronting the abusers and not condemning those who did not come from 2 parent families perhaps we would not have the bleak situation which is facing society in the present day with increasing crim,lawlessness and thuggery;complete disrespect for others dignity,massive increases in litter control and a huge upsurge in sexual attacks.

yet we are not supposed to talk about these things as the very enforcers of doctrinal and rigid adherance to religion remain detached in luxury surroundings with new cars and attended by domestic servants.They continue to propagate mass going and two parent married families as the answer.

Respect for others can only come from ethics awareness at an early age and a true and certin knowledge that transgressors against other peoples property,personal space or health will be severely dealt with. - and those guilty will not be able to hide behind free legal aid and they "came from a broken home,Judge" baloney.

True morality can only be formed from an early age with the certin knowlege of non-compliance.It should have nothing to do with whether you come from a one or two parent background or whether they went to mass.

Very long post in response to some of our media commentators with their slick new presentation skills and ready access to journalists.

You know who ye are.Lets hope ye read this at least and realise some people will NEVER fall for your religion line.

Thanks.Over and Out.

Zillah

Holy Wall of Text Batman! Or should I say secular wall of text? Eitherway, yes, you are correct. It's quite a bone of contention around here. Usually from the Christians actually; "If you don't believe in God there where does morality come from before you can answer it means you don't have morality go eat babies". Which I find worrying, it seems to imply that such believers think they'd go off raping to their pleasure if they ever lost their faith.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

Holy Wall of Text Batman! Or should I say secular wall of text? Eitherway, yes, you are correct. It's quite a bone of contention around here. Usually from the Christians actually; "If you don't believe in God there where does morality come from before you can answer it means you don't have morality go eat babies". Which I find worrying, it seems to imply that such believers think they'd go off raping to their pleasure if they ever lost their faith.

I haven't read the OP - too dam long - but I believe that some (most?) Christians on this site have been quick to point out that they don't believe that a non-Christian is necessarily an immoral person. Indeed, it has often been said that there are countless non-believers, Muslims, Bahaist (is that the plural?) or whatever that are more moral (however one actually agrees on what that is in a pluralist post-modern society) than Christians. I believe that your characterization of the voice of Christianity is about as apt as your characterization of our general sentence construction (my mistakes aside).

If a Christian was to loose his/her faith then the question is how that would effect aspects of their morality. I'm not convinced that rape or baby eating would become burning issues.

Zillah

I didn't claim to be representing the voice of Christianity, merely, as I stated, the Christians who come here baffled as to how an Atheist can be moral.

mickeydevine

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I haven't read the OP - too dam long -

You should actually read it cause I'd enjoy seeing your response. It's written well and makes some good points.

Warning: May contain anti-christian views!

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

I didn't claim to be representing the voice of Christianity, merely, as I stated, the Christians who come here baffled as to how an Atheist can be moral.

Well then you ignore those Christians on Boards that don't hold such views and have fairly categorically stated opinions to the contrary. You could count me as amongst them.

Mickeroo

I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait. Every culture since long before any religion that exist's today had a moral framework of some sort.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well then you ignore those Christians on Boards that don't hold such views and have fairly categorically stated opinions to the contrary. You could count me as amongst them.

I'm also ignoring the Buddhists, the Republicans and the Soccer fans. They, like all the people I'm not talking about, have nothing to do with my comment.

Fanny Cradock

You did rather lump all us Christians in together in your opening post. But if that acute perspective is your focus on matters then so be it.

However, I suggest that there is more to be gained by finding common ground with sympathetic opponents rather then concentrating on those that don't share our mutual agreement.

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If a Christian was to loose his/her faith then the question is how that would effect aspects of their morality.

How do you think losing faith would affect your morality? Say you were to lose your faith tomorrow...

Fanny Cradock

I have no idea.

MrPudding

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait.

The religious can't afford to believe this.

MrP

JC 2K3

Wtf.

Organised relgion = the Catholic Church in Ireland, with emphasis on the most negative aspects of its past?

I'm sorry, I'm no fan of organised religion, but I have to call bullshít on this one.

Goduznt Xzst

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait.

I think the crux of the argument, which rarely seems to be touched, is that do humans require a soul to be moral, or is our morality as naturally forming as our evolved traits.

Christians, even the ones that accept evolution, imagine humans where "imbued" with a "soul" at some point in our evolution. Atheists question why there was even a need. All of our traits can be explained without needing a magical spirit to make us distinguishably human at some point. What did a soul give us that our evolution couldn't?

So if God is not needed for the formation of the universe, or the evolution of life on this planet, or the morals and ethics that humans posess, then of what use is God?

Galvasean

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

What did a soul give us that our evolution couldn't?

Ever lasting life in heaven?
That's about the only thing that hasn't/can't been accounted for by evolution.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

Ever lasting life in heaven?
That's about the only thing that hasn't/can't been accounted for by evolution.

Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.

Which you have faith your god will get right second time round after making a complete balls of the first one?

MrP

Simon.d

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm completely baffled that this is still a debate,it's pretty obvious that morals are not an inheritley religious trait but an inherity HUMAN trait. Every culture since long before any religion that exist's today had a moral framework of some sort.

I don't think morals are inherently human.. I'd say many different animal social groups exhibit some level of morality relative to their own social norms.. i.e. All that licking and pruning and general niceness that goes on in non-human societies coupled with an apparent lack of eating each other's babies..

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

what use is God?

Deities are important in coercive, non-democratic, pre-secular societies, where there leaders need to acquire legitimacy and frequently did so by paying a priesthood to declare that the leader was favored by the deity and would have the moral character to rule wisely and ultimately, be able to call down a heavenly abundance upon his people. AKA the Divine Right of Kings.

In broad terms, society looked like this:

Top: leader (distributes taxes)
Middle: army/police (stick) and priesthood (carrot). (consumes taxes, supports leader)
Bottom: the population (pays taxes)

Now that many countries establish the legitimacy of their leadership by election, the state administrations no longer require much support from their former religions, so the latter have generally sunk into a gentle slumber from which they're unlikely to awake. The USA is different, since it never had a state-sponsored religion and the religious memes evolved rapidly to cope with the lack of state support during the time when educational and economic prospects were low (when religions tend to be most attractive).

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

then of what use is God?

The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father, and provides the same basic functions for people.

• Source of authority on moral issues (we develop a need for moral authority from our parents and this carries over into adulthood and is replaced by god when we realise our parents are "just" humans and can be wrong)
• Purpose (when we are children our purpose is defined by our parents)
• Love
• Guidance
• Companionship

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father

That, I think, was Freud's view, but I don't believe it's still considered a plausible explanation -- the uses of the deity of most monotheistic religions goes way past a replacement father figure (tidy and all as it looks).

ScumLord

I don't know. Allot of our morals come from what religion thought us, in my catholic school we even had a class dedicated to it. Even if your family isn't all that religious their still picking up morals from a Christian society. It's easy to say I made up my own morals after the fact.

I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less). As I see it religion helped people overcome animal instinct. Thinking about a bigger picture helped our minds and morals flourish. Our imaginations became more powerful than the real world around us, human imagination now has a huge influence over the natural world.

But I don't see the modern churches as being all that religious. There just institutions trying to control people and my definition of religion may be way off yours and the accepted meaning of religion. I don't like saying spiritually because that's always considered personal and I like the communal aspect of religion.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Which you have faith your god will get right second time round after making a complete balls of the first one?

MrP

I note the question mark but doubt if you are interested in anything other than making a snappy statement. Some things never change no matter the forum. So really I couldn't be arsed replying to you other then suggesting you read something like [http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Justice-God-N-Wright/dp/0830833986]this[/URL].

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know. Allot of our morals come from what religion thought us, in my catholic school we even had a class dedicated to it. Even if your family isn't all that religious their still picking up morals from a Christian society. It's easy to say I made up my own morals after the fact.

The fact that your moral upbringing was highjacked by a religious group does not mean that morality is in any way dependent upon religion.

I do think religion and morals are linked.

The only link is one that religion has insidiously manufactured.

Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less).

Er, no, morality came first. They're pretty sure of this, given that we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates), and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.

As I see it religion helped people overcome animal instinct. Thinking about a bigger picture helped our minds and morals flourish. Our imaginations became more powerful than the real world around us, human imagination now has a huge influence over the natural world.

That's nice and all but it sounds like a load of waffle that has no actual bearing on reality.

Overblood

ScumLord wrote: »

I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less).

Can you put a date on this? Or do you have any references?

So if morals and religion both popped up in and around the same time, what do you think us moral-less humans were like before that point? It must have been absolute chaos, it's a wonder we're still around...

Obviously the scavenging microscopic origins we evolved from were devoid of morals... but at whatever point morality developed (if it even was a "point"), I'm pretty sure it was well before religion.

Mickeroo

Simon.d wrote: »

I don't think morals are inherently human.. I'd say many different animal social groups exhibit some level of morality relative to their own social norms.. i.e. All that licking and pruning and general niceness that goes on in non-human societies coupled with an apparent lack of eating each other's babies..

I agree completely.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, if you are dealing with Christianity it's everlasting life on a new earth after heaven.

Sorry,i'm not trying to bee a wise ass here, but that sounds like reincarnation, reincarnation in a prallel universe but reincarnaion none the less. Where in chrisitain beliefs does it say we end up on another earth?

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

Deities are important in coercive, non-democratic, pre-secular societies...

Wicknight wrote: »

The monotheistic concept of a god is basically your parents or your father, and provides the same basic functions for people.

err... thanks guys but I was really asking it more as a rhetorical question. It was also posed towards the idea of a creative God, and not the general use of the concept of God.

My point was that from a physical and mental perspective the existence of a God or the human soul is not needed. Without both the Universe and humanity wouldn't look any different than how it does now.

Zillah

It's in the Book of Revelations. Catholicism takes a wonderfully visceral take on everlasting life. While the Gnostics always went for the more esoteric stuff, Catholicism maintains that at the end of time all those that died will be reunited with their now restored bodies. It's a bit unclear but there is a new heaven and a new earth of some sort...maybe one of the believers can elaborate.

(Ironically I'm sure the above would be news to the vast majority of believers. Homer: Have you ever actually read this thing!?)

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

err... thanks guys but I was really asking it more as a rhetorical question.

Hey, you want rhetoric, you come to the right place!

Zillah wrote: »

we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates),

Nice one up on the Beeb today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7934852.stm

Zillah wrote: »

and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.

Cue the opening scene from 2001...

JC 2K3

ScumLord wrote: »

I do think religion and morals are linked. Both popped up around the same time in human development (more or less)

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

The only link is one that religion has insidiously manufactured.

Manufactured by who? Religion developed in just about every society in one way or another and being a good person has nearly always been enforced by an outside force. Monsters, spirits, dead relatives and God.

Er, no, morality came first. They're pretty sure of this, given that we can see many examples of moral behaviour in the animal kingdom (some of it very complex, ie, primates), and not a single species other than humanity displaying anything even remotely related to religion.

Primates are very interesting animals but is it really morality? Their social sure. Our morals probably developed out of things like like protecting your offspring and fitting in with your social groups but I don't think a chimp would be prepared to die because he believes lady chimps should be allowed to rule. (They can just fup off over to them Banobo scum across the river)[/QUOTE]

That's nice and all but it sounds like a load of waffle that has no actual bearing on reality.

Of course it's waffle, all talk of religion is.

Overblood wrote: »

So if morals and religion both popped up in and around the same time, what do you think us moral-less humans were like before that point? It must have been absolute chaos, it's a wonder we're still around...

around 70,000 to 10,000 years ago. You can't really compare human development before the mind developed to the way it is now. Before we where just animals evolving, now what we're learning is making us develop differently.

Zillah

ScumLord wrote: »

Manufactured by who?

Those who have come to believe there is an ultimate moral authority, and that therefore they, being the representatives of said being, are the ultimate moral authority on Earth.

Religion developed in just about every society in one way or another and being a good person has nearly always been enforced by an outside force. Monsters, spirits, dead relatives and God.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here, but yes, people have often used the thread of supernatural forces punishing you as a way to enforce obedience to a code of behaviour.

That doesn't mean morality comes from religion, merely that religion is very good at usurping it.

Primates are very interesting animals but is it really morality?

Yes.

Their social sure. Our morals probably developed out of things like like protecting your offspring and fitting in with your social groups but I don't think a chimp would be prepared to die because he believes lady chimps should be allowed to rule. (They can just fup off over to them Banobo scum across the river)

No, it's a more simplistic morality, but they will die trying to save each other from drowning, for example.

Of course it's waffle, all talk of religion is.

No it isn't, but you'd kind of need to be able to say that yourself to have a chance.

And do read that article, it's quite good:
"Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion."

bluecell99

Hi all,original poster here again.Little did I think that animal species would be brought into the debate!!Not to mention evolution.My own belief,in case there is any doubt,is that ethics and morality are learned behaviour and have nothing to do with worship or belief in a deity - be it a cow,a human like entity or whatever.

My ire ,in the context of organised religion,is directed against the Roman catholic church and its ultimate desire for power and control and money.My knowledge of other christian religions is somewhat limited, however I will say that in my life experience thus far there seems to be a much higher moral compass amongst those who are not catholic.

The exposure of the cult and its worldwide capacity for deceit,property,control,money and sexual relations with abandon,seems to confirm it as a particular problem with the most holy,Roman catholic church.

Its strange and nauseating view of morality has merely increased the sceptics and will hopefully lead to its ultimate demise.

philologos

bluecell99 wrote: »

Some conservative commentators analysis of Irelands current social problems is depressingly simplistic;add weekly mass and insist on two parent families and the situation will improve dramatically.

It would solve a lot of problems actually if you just think about it for a second:
Religious communities in general have lower suicide rates than in communities which do not practice religion at all. This is a common trend. The countries with the highest suicide rates are also the countries which seem to have made the furthest retreats from church attendance etc.
A family with a mother and a father is simply the way to go, it provides the child with a male and a female role model which is important for development, and it provides them a secure base in which they can live, and it provides them with a loving mother and father which care for them. Already I can see the amount of problems a child can have being significantly reduced.
Also a married couple are far more prepared to deal with unplanned or unexpected pregnancies generally in terms of finances and so on, in comparison with those which are outside of marriage. There are also more possibilities for the couple to actually bring the child into the world rather than abortion, or it seems a more tangible option.

Some such families were severely dysfunctional and violent,something both church and state historically failed to appreciate and acknowledge,leaving many defenceless women and children trapped behind a veneer of conformity .

Yes, but in general a marital situation is far more secure than others.

There is scant regard paid to this fact and this has resulted in high rates of alcoholism and suicide not to mention mass emigration from rural areas - not always based on economic factors.But as long as the couple were "married in the eyes of god" and in the "holy roman church" then alcoholism,sexual gratification with children,beatings,mental torture and gratuitous violence were all ignored.

If one lives by Christian values as in the Biblical text, if one heeds the commandments that God has given them (such as Ephesians 5:13, Proverbs 20 and so on) concerning drunkeness the probability of alcohol abuse has diminished. Just because people in the Catholic Church became lapsed and failed to follow God's will (as happened in other churches) doesn't mean that this is a flaw in Christianity, but rather a flaw in human behaviour.

Religious conservatives must realise that religion was only ever an expression of moral sense and NOT ITS FOUNDATION.

Why must we? We believe God's way is the best way, and I'm not going to bow down on that one. We have been given a new chance of life, and a new chance to put ourselves right with others, whether it is through adherence of social laws such as Proverbs, or moral laws of Christ and the Apostles we have this chance, and I believe it to be the most powerful way of life. Why should I compromise my values just for the sake of appeasing you and people like you? Christian values are foundational to me, I treat them with the respect they deserve, and I hope each and every day I can live by them just a bit better.

The moral sense required to underpin the social eduction of kids should focus on ethics and morality in themselves and not the goddam religious window-dressing.

I believe children should be raised to love their neighbour, not to slander and ridicule others to tear them down, build people in the community up for the forces of good, to hate what is evil and to love what is good, not to gossip, help the needy, the orphans and the widows, I believe that people should honour their mother and father, not to steal, to keep away from sexual immorality so as not to harm others, not to revel in drunkeness, to serve the other in society, to honour God, to keep the Shabbat, not to judge unfairly, not to belittle others, and the countless other guidelines that Christians have to live their lives. Values such as ethics and morality don't come from within, that's nonsense, they have to come from somewhere and I'm happiest deriving mine from the Christian faith.

The conservatives are shrewd enough to the sensitivity of the debate to recognise that authoritarian religion is not the answer.The type which was practised here for decades and duped the gullible masses into believing that organised religion and morality were inextricably linked and effectively one and the same thing.NOT SO.

Not so? I believe in universal morality and I believe it to be evident. Anyone who is a moral relativist will be quick to impose their own condemnation on the actions of those who commit genocide, when in reality it could have been right for them at the time under the model of moral relativism. It crumbles, and it isn't a useful framework to have within society. Do you ever wonder why people say to eachother "You should know better?" and appeal to the others sense of morality? It is because this morality is derived from a single universal source.
So yes for me they are one and the same, I believe the God of Israel gave us our means of conscience and discerning what is true from false, and if you choose to follow Him He will train you in His Spirit to be able to do this, and to be able to follow His laws. As I say I'm still learning and I'm still trying to apply as much of this as possible to my life, but I'm also determined to do so.

Surely respect for others is based upon compassion and this is a human trait and NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

Respect is something that has to be learned. You might be able to respect people without a rigid morality system, but is something that isn't grasped by society unfortunately and one could go on all day listing the events. Morality is learned, it isn't within.

Its time that fans of organised religion took their heads out of the sand and faced reality.Their continuing defence of organised religion as the only bullwark against a breakdown of society is doing a grave disservice to all those who have suffered from abuse and does nothing to advance the cause of proper standards of behaviour and respect for people.

Ever thought that God is the reality? I'm pretty much interested in saying the same thing to you. How can you put up mental barriers to religion and expect to find any value in it at all. Mind you then again, the truth is only learned when one asks for it with a full heart on the God question, so I should really expect that you would reject it.
God is the reality for me. He's as real as your or I, infact probably more real since me and you are only His creation. God has made Himself apparent through life if you are willing to seek Him out that is.
I'm not ashamed of Christianity, because it's transformed lives, changed peoples hearts and allows them to live in a way for eachother that isn't possible anywhere else really. It only takes a look into a community of active believers to really see this. If this is the breakdown of society, I don't know if there is much better really.
As for abuse, check this out.
Church != Christianity
Christianity != Church
Would Jesus advocate abuse? - No, therefore it isn't carried out according to the tenets of the Christian faith, hence not Christian motivated. Mind you I find that this is just an excuse churned out at this stage. Jesus is the centre of the Christian faith, not the Church (i'm not a member of the RCC anyway).
Christianity does so much to respect people, it's more that you have your head in the sand and are unwilling to see the truth about life. So I guess this is essentially a counterpoint to that quote.

If they had as been as quick in confronting the abusers and not condemning those who did not come from 2 parent families perhaps we would not have the bleak situation which is facing society in the present day with increasing crim,lawlessness and thuggery;complete disrespect for others dignity,massive increases in litter control and a huge upsurge in sexual attacks

See last post on how Church isn't the source of Christian teachings, but rather Jesus is. Actually that much makes it crystal clear for those who know what the Bible says to be able to check if what the Church is doing is coherent with the Bible, and if not to seek another church or to question their minister.

yet we are not supposed to talk about these things as the very enforcers of doctrinal and rigid adherance to religion remain detached in luxury surroundings with new cars and attended by domestic servants.They continue to propagate mass going and two parent married families as the answer.

This isn't the case at all in the majority of cases. However just because people have luxury surroundings (which is something I don't approve of myself) doesn't mean that the two parent married families aren't the logical answer when infact they are as I explained near the top of my posts. Marriage is the best surroundings for a child to be raised in and there is still a very very strong case for favouring this to unmarried couples on several fronts. The coming together of a man and a woman as one before God is perhaps one of the most beautiful things that we can experience as people on this earth.

Respect for others can only come from ethics awareness at an early age and a true and certin knowledge that transgressors against other peoples property,personal space or health will be severely dealt with. - and those guilty will not be able to hide behind free legal aid and they "came from a broken home,Judge" baloney.

At an early age? You still haven't explained how these ethics are meant to be imparted. I personally consider the Biblical text to be the cornerstone of how I want to apply moral rules to my life. I'm nearly 20, and I'm still seeking to know more about how to live my life, so I want to know how on earth do you possibly think that morals are innate?
The problem with your theory is is that it promotes an idea where people don't review their morals, and check them, and see what can they do better as people. This is something that is promoted by mainstream religion and is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for religious ethics, the fact that you are constantly checking to see if you are leading your life right, and if you are not what can you do better. This concept is unheard of in secular circles really, and if it is there I'd like for some of you guys to explain how you do this as I'd find it particularly interesting.
As for broken homes, they are a reality, people suffer greatly due to divorce, and due to adultery and other such things, I really think that it is a bit cruel of you to underestimate the great pain that people feel. It is these people I hope that can know God through their suffering and find peace.

True morality can only be formed from an early age with the certin knowlege of non-compliance.It should have nothing to do with whether you come from a one or two parent background or whether they went to mass.

What is this early age nonsense? Morality is something that we all have to deal with throughout our whole lives until we see the grave. It shouldn't be something you stop learning when you are young. It has everything to do with where you learned it from.
A two parent background helps, theres no denying that. Growing up with both a male and female rolemodel helps in what one learns about society, this is even discussed in psychology.
As for going to church. Going to church is only a tiny part of faith. I believe reading the Bible, the Gospels, the Apostolic Epistles, the Old Testament narratives and moral Torah laws can all help us grow as people. You're right, if you think that faith is only about going to church it is lacking! Faith for me is every day, or I'm trying to make it every day, instead of just Sunday.

Very long post in response to some of our media commentators with their slick new presentation skills and ready access to journalists.

I doubt any of the media commentators [I presume that David Quinn is one of the ones you are referring to - I personally think he's a wise man in a lot of ways] will be registered in boards.ie

You know who ye are.Lets hope ye read this at least and realise some people will NEVER fall for your religion line.

Yes I know who I am
Unfortunate that you are so closedminded but such is the way of life. I hope you learned something from my post about how Christians are really instead of the outer appearance that you have gathered from some people. I just want to let you know, if the Church has let you down, there is absolutely no reason to think that Jesus has let you down. There are also more churches in Ireland than Catholicism. I hope that you search and find God one day, irrespective of what Christian congregation you lean to or any.

Húrin

MrPudding wrote: »

The religious can't afford to believe this.

Curiously, it's the opening argument of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Christians, even the ones that accept evolution, imagine humans where "imbued" with a "soul" at some point in our evolution. Atheists question why there was even a need. All of our traits can be explained without needing a magical spirit to make us distinguishably human at some point. What did a soul give us that our evolution couldn't?

So if God is not needed for the formation of the universe, or the evolution of life on this planet, or the morals and ethics that humans posess, then of what use is God?

You write as if these questions were settled science, when they are not. This is just 'naturalism of the gaps'.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

It's in the Book of Revelations. Catholicism takes a wonderfully visceral take on everlasting life. While the Gnostics always went for the more esoteric stuff, Catholicism maintains that at the end of time all those that died will be reunited with their now restored bodies. It's a bit unclear but there is a new heaven and a new earth of some sort...maybe one of the believers can elaborate.

(Ironically I'm sure the above would be news to the vast majority of believers. Homer: Have you ever actually read this thing!?)

Pretty much all the Catholics I know think they are going to (the old) heaven when they die. Nothin' about a new Earth.

Húrin wrote: »

You write as if these questions were settled science,

They have been pretty much settled.

Húrin wrote: »

This is just 'naturalism of the gaps'.

Ri-ight.....

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

They have been pretty much settled.

Really?

Ri-ight.....

clever. That settles it so.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Really?

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

Christians, even the ones that accept evolution, imagine humans where "imbued" with a "soul" at some point in our evolution. Atheists question why there was even a need. All of our traits can be explained without needing a magical spirit to make us distinguishably human at some point.

These are facts no?

JimiTime wrote: »

clever. That settles it so.

As opposed to making up the phrase 'naturalism of the gaps' no doubt to try bring orthodox science down to the level of the 'God of the gaps'.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

These are facts no?

Did you puposely leave out the next section of that quote?

'So if God is not needed for the formation of the universe, or the evolution of life on this planet, or the morals and ethics that humans posess, then of what use is God?'

The above are certainly not facts.

As opposed to making up the phrase 'naturalism of the gaps' no doubt to try bring orthodox science down to the level of the 'God of the gaps'.

Quite an appropriate term for what was suggested.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

If one lives by Christian values as in the Biblical text, if one heeds the commandments that God has given them (such as Ephesians 5:13, Proverbs 20 and so on) concerning drunkeness the probability of alcohol abuse has diminished. Just because people in the Catholic Church became lapsed and failed to follow God's will (as happened in other churches) doesn't mean that this is a flaw in Christianity, but rather a flaw in human behaviour.

That's it Jackass, keep burying you head in the sand and repeating the same old tired crap in the hope that this time someone will let it slide.

It's been pointed out ad-infinitum that the Bible as a text is a piss-poor source of morals and values, because:

It's not written as a moral guide, nor is it read in its original language. It doesn't give clear guidance and it contradicts itself on a regular basis.

It pretty much says everything is OK, including rape, casual murder, genocide, incest, slavery and abuse of animals (OK not homosexuals it's always bad to love someone of the same sex)

Where it does have clear guidance, where an instruction is clearly written, unambiguous and repeated in the text, "Christians" still find a way through very clever "reading" to ignore it.

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

That's it Jackass, keep burying you head in the sand and repeating the same old tired crap in the hope that this time someone will let it slide.

It's been pointed out ad-infinitum that the Bible as a text is a piss-poor source of morals and values, because:

It's not written as a moral guide, nor is it read in its original language. It doesn't give clear guidance and it contradicts itself on a regular basis.

It pretty much says everything is OK, including rape, casual murder, genocide, incest, slavery and abuse of animals (OK not homosexuals it's always bad to love someone of the same sex)

Where it does have clear guidance, where an instruction is clearly written, unambiguous and repeated in the text, "Christians" still find a way through very clever "reading" to ignore it.

Its unfortunate that you are so ignorant. Though I suppose the world of Christendom must take alot of the blame for allowing this view to prosper. Ah well. [shrug]

philologos

Húrin wrote: »

Curiously, it's the opening argument of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Curiously Paul the Apostle also argues that Gentiles had the capability of following the law without the law in Romans ch 2, so I don't see how that would cause a believer to stumble or be any way a problem for one to deal with.

philologos

pH wrote: »

That's it Jackass, keep burying you head in the sand and repeating the same old tired crap in the hope that this time someone will let it slide.

If you have a problem with my post, actually make a stab at refuting it.

pH wrote: »

It's been pointed out ad-infinitum that the Bible as a text is a piss-poor source of morals and values, because:

In the counter-case, as has been pointed out ad-infinitum, the Bible as a text is a rather strong source of morals, much stronger than anything I've ever heard an atheist base their lives on.

pH wrote: »

It's not written as a moral guide, nor is it read in its original language. It doesn't give clear guidance and it contradicts itself on a regular basis.

You might want to take a read at the start of Proverbs in particular where it discusses the value of wisdom and the value of living ones life in righteousness. Of course there are countless other sections of the Bible which impart morals.

Proverbs 1:2-6 wrote:

For learning about wisdom and instruction,
for understanding words of insight,
for gaining instruction in wise dealing,
righteousness, justice, and equity;
to teach shrewdness to the simple,
knowledge and prudence to the young—
let the wise also hear and gain in learning,
and the discerning acquire skill,
to understand a proverb and a figure,
the words of the wise and their riddles.

It seems to me the aim of this is actually to impart morality.

pH wrote: »

It pretty much says everything is OK, including rape, casual murder, genocide, incest, slavery and abuse of animals (OK not homosexuals it's always bad to love someone of the same sex)

No it does not permit incest. This is ridiculous and clearly shows that you take what you please from the Bible.

This passage is to show through human example how things are sinful, it's even titled "The Shameful Origin of Moab and Ammon" in Genesis 19. So let me ask you, how could something be shameful even if it is above board morally?

Slavery is explained rather nicely in this article by Chabad. I've however argued that slavery in the Torah is a rather different thing from slavery in colonial times given that these labourers that were used were actually treated rather well. Given the freedom to go out, given the freedom to have Shabbat off work, given the freedom to leave their master should they attain injury of any form. The Torah even forbids sexual abuse of slaves. Rather interesting how selective you are.

How could the Israelites after being liberated from slavery by the Egyptians treat their fellow men in a manner unbecoming of this grace?

I personally think they didn't and the text seems to back me up rather well actually. The Torah also commands respect for the foreigner and to treat the foreigner as if they were Israelites themselves, for the Lord had delivered them from Egypt. Not much of a case here.

It's up to you to provide references for rape and casual murder. Every passage I have heard cited as supporting rape in the Torah has fallen flat as meaning something else entirely when looking at the actual Hebrew.

As for casual murder are you referring to the death penalty here or which part of the Torah are you discussing. Please cite and reference if you can.

As for genocide. I see this as punishment of the people who had lived there and the people who had transgressed God's decree that Israel should live on their land. God has the right to punish people for their sins even to the point of death (Romans ch 6, Romans ch 1), I'm just thankful that I have received grace under God through Jesus Christ for mine.

Abuse of animals. Please cite again? If you mean in the case that animals should be killed for goring innocent civilians, I don't really see that as a case of cruelty more of protection of the community of Israelites that lived at that time.

However lets deal with your main point. The Bible is confused on morality? Actually it really isn't if you consider the Bible to be a single revelation from the Torah to the New Testament writers. The New Testament writers even say how the law is to be interpreted in the light of the coming of Jesus Christ. You are without excuse really.

pH wrote: »

Where it does have clear guidance, where an instruction is clearly written, unambiguous and repeated in the text, "Christians" still find a way through very clever "reading" to ignore it.

Or, they actually explain to you how after the coming of Jesus Christ certain passages of Torah and the Old Testament have been fulfilled as Jesus said they would be. (Matthew 5:17)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

A family with a mother and a father is simply the way to go, it provides the child with a male and a female role model which is important for development, and it provides them a secure base in which they can live, and it provides them with a loving mother and father which care for them. Already I can see the amount of problems a child can have being significantly reduced.
Also a married couple are far more prepared to deal with unplanned or unexpected pregnancies generally in terms of finances and so on, in comparison with those which are outside of marriage. There are also more possibilities for the couple to actually bring the child into the world rather than abortion, or it seems a more tangible option.

I agree with most of that, but that the problem is that some what childish attitude Christianity takes to sex and marriage (no sex, at all, before marriage) puts pressure on couples to marry young, without gaining the experience of long term, and sexual, relationships.

This leads to a higher level of marital break down and divorce, as the people getting married are inexperience with relationships and how to tell if a relationship is the one they want to spend their life with

Which is never a good idea for the children. And when a marriage does break down the religious stigma of divorce, the some what nonsensical idea that it is the selfish option, often keeps a completely miserable couple together, the stress of which cannot help but effect the kids.

Like abstinence only (teach kids not to have sex, they won't have sex, they won't get pregnant, they won't catch STDs, problem solved) it all sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in real life. The most frustrating thing though about Christian style morality is that answer for when it doesn't work is along the lines of "well you didn't do what we told you to do, did you?"

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

You write as if these questions were settled science, when they are not. This is just 'naturalism of the gaps'.

No science is settled science. But you can come to accept a scientific theory if there is insufficient or no evidence against it. Ergo, I accept the theory of gravity without entertaining the idea that some God is magically holding my feet to this planet.

If you want to call my acceptance of this theory "naturalism of the gaps" :rolleyes: then by all means, that is your right. I am however happy to accept that this Universe does not require a God to of made it, or that humans do not require a soul to be moral and that gravity is holding me to this planet and not Gods magical powers.

Dave!

Jakass,

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
-Exodus 21

What am I misinterpretting about this? You're allowed to beat your slaves, but if they die, then you should be punished.

How is that good treatment?

robindch

pH wrote: »

[...] repeating the same old tired crap [...]

JimiTime wrote: »

Its unfortunate that you are so ignorant.

Guys, passionate = good, discourtesy = bad. Lets try to keep it civil.

Thanks.

ScumLord

Zillah wrote: »

And do read that article, it's quite good:
"Religion can be seen as another special ingredient of human societies, though one that emerged thousands of years after morality, in Dr. de Waal’s view. There are clear precursors of morality in nonhuman primates, but no precursors of religion. So it seems reasonable to assume that as humans evolved away from chimps, morality emerged first, followed by religion."

That is a good link, thanks. I don't know though, it could be a building block of morality rather than morality its self. It all depends on how you define it. I went looking on Wiki and other sources and the definition changes to suit the evidence.

You do make allot of sense but I'm just not so sure yet.

philologos

Dave! wrote: »

Jakass,

20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
-Exodus 21

What am I misinterpretting about this? You're allowed to beat your slaves, but if they die, then you should be punished.

How is that good treatment?

Thanks a lot Dave this really helps me to show the fallacy of out of context quotation, now read the rest of Exodus 21?

Exodus 21:26-27 wrote:

When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth.

Why didn't you post the rest of the passage Dave?

If there is major injury the slave must be let go, how convenient that something so relevant to the piece you just quoted wasn't considered when you read it?

Did you read the article I linked?

JC 2K3

I think the point is that not only is slavery ok, but that beating a slave is ok as long as you don't kill or maim him.

Dave!

No Jakass I didn't read your article, nor did I read the rest of the passage

However, the quote that I DID post says that the slave owner can strike his slave and not be punished. Regardless of any injuries that occur or do not occur, you said that slaves are treated "very well".

So you condone the hitting of slaves, and think that it's okay so long as they aren't killed, and so long as they don't lose an eye or a tooth? I guess I'll just chop off my slaves' ears when they're out of line.

And furthermore, the quote you posted says that if the slave owner does destroy the slave's eye or tooth, then the slave should be freed. But what happens to the slave owner? Is there a subsequent quote that says that the owner should be punished for injuring them?