Moral Guidance

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

Is there any evidence anywhere, that they or the garden of Eden ever existed?

If evidence was presented, the quality of that evidence would then become the subject of debate.

The only evidence there is that the Garden of Eden existed is in Scripture.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

Genesis tells that God instructed that man had dominion over everything that was created. God commanded that man could do whatever he wished except "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat"

Sounds like a lot of bad management to me. In the business world of mere mortals Adams mistake would have been seen as poor management on Gods part. God puts a new employee in charge of everything on his first day and just expects him to know everything. Humans would have extensive training for such a roll. We also wouldn't punish the new guy because he made a mistake, we all know humans make mistakes, but crucially we learn from our mistakes. We would have implemented policies to ensure the same mistake wasn't made again.

Even in our most selfish fields like big business we don't punish people for simple mistakes, we get to the route of why the mistake happened and we implement systems to try and prevent the mistakes from happening again. It's a very productive system and if we can be this productive at eliminating human error, why did god act like a spoilt child? Where's the enlightenment in his actions?

hinault

SW wrote: »

But how would Adam and Eve know it's wrong to eat of the tree, as they hadn't eaten of the tree? They didn't know the difference between right and wrong.

Genesis tells that it was God who commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God warned that if he did eat of the tree he would die.

Later, the serpent questioned Eve about God's command about the tree of good and evil.
Genesis says that Eve was aware of God's command not to eat of the tree of good and evil.

So we know that Eve was aware of this command.
We know that Eve was also aware of what the punishment was for disobeying the command too.

jobbridge4life

A bigger question is to what extent religion really ever provided moral 'guidance'. Religions are great at telling people what is kosher and what is verboten but that is not so much guidance as control. In this way we are familiar with the pious who keep the relevant rules of their religions but outside of that or in grey areas they can be capable of the most grave immorality.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

Sounds like a lot of bad management to me. In the business world of mere mortals Adams mistake would have been seen as poor management on Gods part. God puts a new employee in charge of everything on his first day and just expects him to know everything. Humans would have extensive training for such a roll. We also wouldn't punish the new guy because he made a mistake, we all know humans make mistakes, but crucially we learn from our mistakes. We would have implemented policies to ensure the same mistake wasn't made again.

Even in our most selfish fields like big business we don't punish people for simple mistakes, we get to the route of why the mistake happened and we implement systems to try and prevent the mistakes from happening again. It's a very productive system and if we can be this productive at eliminating human error, why did god act like a spoilt child? Where's the enlightenment in his actions?

Bad management is ignoring the penalty causing death.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

Bad management is ignoring the penalty causing death.

I don't know what you mean by that?

anothernight

Honest question because I'm really curious:

For those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from religion, do you think that all non-religious people live utterly immoral or amoral lives? Or do they get some morality right? If so, is it purely by coincidence? Can religious people be immoral despite following their religious convictions?

And for those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from Christianity, as opposed to other organised religions, are other religious non-Christians as immoral or amoral as the non-religious?

antiskeptic

anothernight wrote: »

Honest question because I'm really curious:

For those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from religion, do you think that all non-religious people live utterly immoral or amoral lives? Or do they get some morality right? If so, is it purely by coincidence? Can religious people be immoral despite following their religious convictions?

And for those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from Christianity, as opposed to other organised religions, are other religious non-Christians as immoral or amoral as the non-religious?

Christianity holds that everybody is in possession of a God-given conscience on the one hand, and a sinful nature (propensity to like and desire and choose for that which is sinful) on the other. This from the time of Adam (who came to know good and evil (a.k.a. he obtained hisself a conscience)) to today

Insofar as a person follows their God-given conscience (whether they believe in God or not) they are being moral. And insofar as they act contra their conscience* (whether they believe in God or not) they are being immoral

So of course, people can act morally without being Christians. Indeed, they might act more morally than Christians - since the term 'Christian' (as God defines it) says something about a persons legal status or position before God, not whether they are acting morally/according to his will or not.

Christians (in the God-defined sense of the word) can, have and will continue to do.. abominable things.

Downstream from that you have Christian religions trying to give voice to the principles of morality they feel are resident in God's word. They'll differ of course, since all interpret differently and have different axes to grind. It's worth remembering that those attempting to distill God's word into a comprehensible set of moral values are sinners and so their efforts are likely to fall short of perfection. Maybe even a long way short.

The key issue is, as I say, that all are in possession of a direct link (as it were) to God via conscience. A one-to-one connection that supercedes any religious adherence or none.


* a person might sear their conscience (as it were), that is, suppress it and act contra to it to the point where it is silenced on a particular subject. The persons view has become distorted such that they see something as right when it is in fact wrong.

anothernight

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christianity holds that everybody in possession of a God-given conscience on the one hand and a sinful nature (propensity to like and desire and choose for that which is sinful) on the other. This from Adam (who came to know good and evil a.k.a. he obtained hisself a conscience)

etc.

etc.

Thank you.

ScumLord

antiskeptic wrote: »

In so far as a person follows their God-given conscience (whether they believe in God or not) they are being moral.

So what if your god given conscience conflicts with what the bible tells you is moral? IE: Hating gays. If my god given conscience tells me to treat gays the same as any other person but the bible tells me I should throw stones at them, which one is god speaking?

hinault

anothernight wrote: »

Honest question because I'm really curious:

For those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from religion, do you think that all non-religious people live utterly immoral or amoral lives?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think that all non-religious people live utterly immoral or amoral lives

anothernight wrote: »

Or do they get some morality right? If so, is it purely by coincidence?

Obviously those non-religious people who lead morally correct lives do so based on some sort of moral/ethical standards. Is this coincidence? I don't know.

anothernight wrote: »

Can religious people be immoral despite following their religious convictions?

Yes. There are religious people who despite what they claim lead morally unjustifiable lives.

anothernight wrote: »

And for those who think that moral guidance should come exclusively from Christianity, as opposed to other organised religions, are other religious non-Christians as immoral or amoral as the non-religious?

No doubt that there are many non-Christians who lead morally good lives.

I'm interested in reading how those, whether they are Christian or not, justify their morality.

antiskeptic

ScumLord wrote: »

So what if your god given conscience conflicts with what the bible tells you is moral? IE: Hating gays. If my god given conscience tells me to treat gays the same as any other person but the bible tells me I should throw stones at them, which one is god speaking?

Do you reckon Jesus hated gays? Was that his m.o.?

"The Bible says..." is a bit too blunt an instrument to attempt to wield as you do. It is striking that for all your time on this forum, you've not apparently managed to elevate your understanding of the Bible and its construction to anything approaching even basic level. It's like your having resided in a foreign land for years and never being able to do more than order a couple of beers in the local language.

What's next? Do I wear clothes of mixed threads?

RecordStraight

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you reckon Jesus hated gays? Was that his m.o.?

"The Bible says..." is a bit too blunt an instrument to attempt to wield as you do. It is striking that for all your time on this forum, you've not apparently managed to elevate your understanding of the Bible and its construction to anything approaching even basic level. It's like your having resided in a foreign land for years and never being able to do more than order a couple of beers in the local language.

What's next? Do I wear clothes of mixed threads?

Funny thing is that another soi-disant Christian - Hinault, for example - would agree with Scumlord and think that you are talking nonsense, based on the very same Bible.

antiskeptic

RecordStraight wrote: »

Funny thing is that another soi-disant Christian

Is there any other type (other than the God-proclaimed type - which obviously is the only type which would count, ultimately)?

Hinault, for example - would agree with Scumlord and think that you are talking nonsense, based on the very same Bible.

Hinault reckons the Bible says he should hate gays? Really?

Edit: to add the obvious

RecordStraight

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is there any other type (other than the God-proclaimed type - which obviously is the only type which would count, ultimately)?



Hinault reckons the Bible says he should hate gays? Really?

Edit: to add the obvious

These people are reading the same Bible:



Thank goodness they have organised religion to give them a moral framework, eh?

Safehands

RecordStraight wrote: »

These people are reading the same Bible:



Thank goodness they have organised religion to give them a moral framework, eh?

In fairness, I have never seen any organised religion touting those type of placards. A tad disingenuous to suggest that this was from any organised religion, don't you think?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

In fairness, I have never seen any organised religion touting those type of placards. A tad disingenuous to suggest that this was from any organised religion, don't you think?

The Westboro Baptist Church isn't organised? Or is it your position that it's not religious?

RecordStraight

Safehands wrote: »

In fairness, I have never seen any organised religion touting those type of placards. A tad disingenuous to suggest that this was from any organised religion, don't you think?

Christianity isn't organised religion?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Westboro Baptist Church isn't organised? Or is it your position that it's not religious?

Its organised all right, just like the KKK is organised.

RecordStraight

Safehands wrote: »

Its organised all right, just like the KKK is organised.

The premise of the arguments presented by some posters here is that we need organised religion (in this case, unsurprisingly, Christianity to be precise) to give us moral guidance.

Westboro Baptist Church is an organised religious group (a Christian one) taking their moral guidance from the Bible.

Safehands

RecordStraight wrote: »

The premise of the arguments presented by some posters here is that we need organised religion (in this case, unsurprisingly, Christianity to be precise) to give us moral guidance.

Westboro Baptist Church is an organised religious group (a Christian one) taking their moral guidance from the Bible.

I'm not trying to defend, support or represent organised religions, but groups like that are extremists, even if they do claim to take moral guidance from the bible. They are not far off ISIS who could claim to be an organised religion but who are a danger to society. To point to them and declare them in any way representative of the organised religion being discussed on this thread, is clearly disingenuous.

RecordStraight

Safehands wrote: »

I'm not trying to defend, support or represent organised religions, but groups like that are extremists, even if they do claim to take moral guidance from the bible. They are not far off ISIS who could claim to be an organised religion but who are a danger to society. To point to them and declare them in any way representative of the organised religion being discussed on this thread, is clearly disingenuous.

It's a lot less disingenuous than pointing to Stalin or Hitler and suggesting that they represent morality outside organised religion.

smacl

ScumLord wrote: »

So what if your god given conscience conflicts with what the bible tells you is moral? IE: Hating gays. If my god given conscience tells me to treat gays the same as any other person but the bible tells me I should throw stones at them, which one is god speaking?

Seems like the majority of nominal Catholics in this country would appear to run with their god given conscience rather than a literal interpretation of the bible if we consider the recent results on the same sex marriage referendum. Not all of them, but a majority nonetheless. I think it is incorrect to label the behaviour of all Christians based on the behaviour of more extreme elements, as they would appear to be a very diverse bunch when it comes to moral stance. While you have some extreme homophobes in the mix, you also have the likes of Bishop Michael Burrows at the other end of the spectrum.

smacl

RecordStraight wrote: »

It's a lot less disingenuous than pointing to Stalin or Hitler and suggesting that they represent morality outside organised religion.

Doesn't make either stance correct though, does it?

RecordStraight

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't make either stance correct though, does it?

I'm disputing the claim that society needs organised religion for moral guidance.

By analogy, Hinault et al. are claiming that all swans are white. If I point out a black one, their claim is incorrect. I am not making any claims about swans at all, so they can point out all the black swans they like and it is not refuting any point I am making.

ScumLord

Safehands wrote: »

In fairness, I have never seen any organised religion touting those type of placards. A tad disingenuous to suggest that this was from any organised religion, don't you think?

In fairness they're not plucking it out of thin air either. They're only saying what many Christians are thinking... That the bible labels gay people as the next best thing to a demon on earth. The bible does pretty much imply that you should hate them enough to be able to kill them.

There's just no consistency with religion. Religious will say god is pure love, yet the bible shows he's not all about pure love, that all he really seems to care about is people worshiping him and he'll use the most severe punishments for the slightest transgression and forgive the worst crimes as long as you bow before him. But when you highlight that, the stories become metaphors, but as we've seen in this thread those metaphors become real again when people use them to justify things like labeling every human being that's ever lived as a sinner by default because the lead character in the garden of eden story eat one of god's apples.


I think the human race has far surpassed the god in the bibles on morality. If Old testament god came back to earth today he'd be nothing more than a tyrant. Of course you don't see any miracles in the age of technology, god seems to be very camera shy.

antiskeptic

RecordStraight wrote: »

These people are reading the same Bible:

In much the same way as Scumlord reads it, as it happens. Very selectively.

Reading and comprehension are two different things.


Anyway, you were saying about hinault?

antiskeptic

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the human race has far surpassed the god in the bibles on morality. If Old testament god came back to earth today he'd be nothing more than a tyrant. Of course you don't see any miracles in the age of technology, god seems to be very camera shy.

What about the new testament God. What'd he be like?

Peregrinus

RecordStraight wrote: »

I'm disputing the claim that society needs organised religion for moral guidance.

In general, the claim that only organised religions can provide moral guidance is nonsense on stilts.

It's undoubtedly true that organised religions can and very often do function as institutions through which societies do formulate, inclulcate and transmit ethical and moral norms. It doesn't follow, though, that they are the only institutions which can do this. (Nor is there any a priori reason to suppose the ethical and moral norms that they transmit will be better (or worse) than those transmitted by non-religious institutions.)

But there is nevertheless some point to the question raised in the OP ("With the departure of organised religions from our society, where do our young people go for moral guidance?"). If (a) you have a society which, in practice, has formulated and transmitted its ethical norms through religious organisations and (b) as a result of a process of secularisation religious institutions are going to be less effective at filling this function, then you may have a transitional problem, in that you need to develop new and effective ways of doing this, possibly involving new institutions, or new roles for existing institutions.

But I wouldn't overstate the size of this problem. The question posed in the OP seems to presume that "organised religions" were the principal source of moral guidance up to now, but of course they weren't. Parents and nuclear families were, and still are, and this is not likely to change. (Especially if we're focussing our concern, for some reason, on "young people".) But it may be true to say that, if you're looking for a forum which supports intentional moral/ethical discourse at a level above the family then, yes, the decline of the churches may leave something of a gap. But it's not a gap that is in principle unfillable.

silverharp

I was brought up with a fair amount of "tell the truth and shame the devil" stuff. In hindsight it was an awful basis to guide a child's ethics. Whether some parents have trouble vocalising the reasoning behind ethics they would know that society will judge their kids. And if kids growing up ask why they shouldn't lie etc. they deserve better than " just because" or implying its about making life easier for the parent.