A question of morals

elvenscout742

HEY! Donkeys aren't intelligent enough to imagine such a god!

Fysh

Well, the problem with what you said is that our intelligence is what made us conceive of gods and goddesses back in the day, and yet now that our intelligence and the scientific method it led us to has thrown many questions about the legitimacy of such gods and goddesses as anything other than stories you don't seem to think that we should apply that intelligence to what we believe.

Put it this way : in my opinion, there is only one difference between someone ardently believing in the Christian God and someone believing in an invisible pink rhinoceros. The difference being accumulated history and duration of the belief conferring on it the appearance of legitimacy (because all those millions of people couldn't have been wrong, could they?). In the abscence of any kind of proof, it's illogical.

People who just sort of amblingly go along with it and to whom religion is basically a source of ethics don't count. I'm not talking about the social or political effects of religion, I'm talking about the faith part.

Zukustious

rightleftright wrote:

Something un-natural and dirty like homosexuality is wrong and shouldnt be de-classified just becuase we have suddenly arrived at a time in our history where liberals are actually being listened to, which has been a big mistake.

Now this is what I'm talking about. Let's say I were to say this man's beliefs on homosexuality were ridiculous. He's saying it's not natural, despite the fact that it is, as it seemingly occurs in nature. I'd imagine most people would have no problem with me saying this man's beliefs are silly. Why is it a bit of a taboo to say belief in god is silly too?

nesf

Zukustious wrote:

Now this is what I'm talking about. Let's say I were to say this man's beliefs on homosexuality were ridiculous. He's saying it's not natural, despite the fact that it is, as it seemingly occurs in nature. I'd imagine most people would have no problem with me saying this man's beliefs are silly. Why is it a bit of a taboo to say belief in god is silly too?

Actually some people would take serious issue with you thinking his beliefs were silly. Just pop over to stormfront and see for yourself.

It's not taboo to say belief in god is silly, it's a mark of respect to people who do have faith that we don't ridicule their beliefs. Saying God is silly will just insult and get some peoples backs up.

For instance I have a few friends that are very homophobic. I don't talk about how natural and normal homosexuality is to them because they would be very uncomfortable. It's a mark of respect to them rather than anything else.

Zukustious

Well, in fairness, this guy doesn't deserve much in the respect department, as he blatently just said homosexuals are unnatural, which is hugely disrespecting to them no?

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

elvenscout742

Fysh wrote:

People who just sort of amblingly go along with it and to whom religion is basically a source of ethics don't count. I'm not talking about the social or political effects of religion, I'm talking about the faith part.

Well, as I'm sure I said (or if I didn't, I was probably thinking it so much that on some level I felt it was implied), most religions do not place so much emphasis of "faith", but on how one should live one's life. Just look hard at other religions from around the world: you'll see it. I agree entirely, however, that Christianity is an extremely dangerous thing.

Zukustious wrote:

Well, in fairness, this guy doesn't deserve much in the respect department, as he blatently just said homosexuals are unnatural, which is hugely disrespecting to them no?

Not to mention plain incorrect. If homosexuality wasn't a part of nature, it wouldn't exist.

Zukustious wrote:

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

Actually, why not try reading some books on the origins of myth and the Gods, before going onto the Internet and saying something silly like that? May I suggest the "Masks of God" series by Joseph Campbell or Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England? (I should point out to those of ye unfamiliar with these writers, they are not some intolerant fundamentalists or Creationists; they were two of the greatest scientists in their field.)

Sleepy

nesf wrote:

For instance I have a few friends that are very homophobic. I don't talk about how natural and normal homosexuality is to them because they would be very uncomfortable. It's a mark of respect to them rather than anything else.

So, you think you're doing your friends a favour by allowing their bigotry go unqestioned?

Zukustious

elvenscout742 wrote:

Actually, why not try reading some books on the origins of myth and the Gods, before going onto the Internet and saying something silly like that? May I suggest the "Masks of God" series by Joseph Campbell or Brian Branston's The Lost Gods of England? (I should point out to those of ye unfamiliar with these writers, they are not some intolerant fundamentalists or Creationists; they were two of the greatest scientists in their field.)

What did they have to say?

mrben

I think it's perfectly right to say belief in god is silly, because that's what it is. God is founded on nothing, only other people saying it's true, which is without a doubt silly.

How dare you say that. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. Just because something isnt proven by science doesnt mean its not true. How can you say Jesus didnt come to earth 2000 years ago?
Its very sad listening to people like you.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

How dare you say that. Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.

No, Jesus Christ died on the cross to allow us the possibility of redemption from Original Sin, which was lumped on us by His Dad. Not the same thing, and utterly irrelevant if you aren't a committed Christian.

I note how swifly you removed the "cockroach" comment too, although it's rather telling of your opinion of anyone not as devout as you. And tends to suggest that you're nowhere near as loving of your fellow man as your alleged saviour suggested you should be.

mrben wrote:

Just because something isnt proven by science doesnt mean its not true. How can you say Jesus didnt come to earth 2000 years ago?
Its very sad listening to people like you.

It's far sadder listening to people like you, who don't see the comedic value of trying to claim that God put dinosaur skeletons in the earth to test people's faith in him.

It is generally accepted that there was a philosopher called Jesus around 2000 years ago. Where people argue is over what he said and what he did, especially when some of the written records seem to date from rather later than his actual lifespan.

There again, where a science-oriented person likes me loses any interest is in reading the bible wherein Jesus carried out miracles on a regular basis. Firstly Thomas is mocked for having doubts, despite the presence of various other religions in the world and the commandment that one should have no false gods (which you might expect to encourage some degree of care in who you follow and worship, but apparently not). Then (more importantly) we've got the lack of any miracles these days. Surely if God is up there, and genuinely wants us to believe, a bit of proof isn't much? A burning tree that talks to you, whatever you want. Proof is not much to ask. Until you ask the converse question - what's the benefit of a congregation that believes without proof? The benefit is that they do what you tell them, conferring power on you as the preacher or head of church.

mrben

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

oneweb

mrben wrote:

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

I already know why you're an idiot.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

only when you come face to face with the lord when you die will you think, why was i such an idiot.

Nah. Actually I'll think "wait a minute, this hypocrite was in charge the whole time? Wow, men really *were* made in the image of God."

Then I'll kick his ass for it. Or attain whatever the afterlife's equivalent of death is while trying to, anyway.

mrben

Then I'll kick his ass for it.

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

Fysh

mrben wrote:

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

So you say. But then again, the old testament and new testament don't really tally all that well do they? Old testament was fire and brimstone, new testament was the new covenant of forgiveness under which man could "redeem" himself (from a corruption present through God's own work, presumably - but people tend to skim over that part...).

Since there's little to no evidence regarding what God can or cannot do, much less what the soul can hypothetically do when departed from the body and faced with this hypothetical God, you should really withhold judgement on whether I can kick his arse or not until my boots are within punting range of his buttocks, so to speak.

This is getting to the playground level now, though....

amp

Mr Ben is no longer welcome in Humanities and has been banned for personal abuse.

elvenscout742

Zukustious wrote:

What did they have to say?

An awful lot. The former is 1,600 pages long. They get fairly complicated, so I'm going to bother explaining it in detail (I haven't actually read that much of Masks of God myself, anyway) but one can be sure that religion can't be fully removed from the human consequences... EVER.

Zukustious

mrben wrote:

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

See this kind of thing is silly. Why would God send you to a place of eternal torture for not believing in him? It's just cruel. That's not an all loving God, or all forgiving for that matter.

Boston

Sleepy wrote:

So, you think you're doing your friends a favour by allowing their bigotry go unqestioned?

There are worse things then being a homophobe. Nobody is perfect, and it is merely a character flaw, the person on the whole may be an ok person. For some people it would be an irreconcilable character flaw for others it would not. you have to get on with your life, no matter how distasteful it maybe and you can't challenge every bigot out there.

Eoghan-psych

Zukustious wrote:

Why is it morally wrong to crticise a religion.

It isn't. Religion is just another idea - until such time as a particular religion is demonstrated to be valid, religion is just as open for criticism as any other idea.

Eoghan-psych

rightleftright wrote:

Wrong and stupid?!
Something un-natural and dirty like homosexuality is wrong and shouldnt be de-classified just becuase we have suddenly arrived at a time in our history where liberals are actually being listened to, which has been a big mistake.

First, it isn't "unnatural". Not even close.

Second, I assume that by "declassified" you are referring to it being removed from the DSM. That isn't because "liberals are actually being listened to", it's because the profession community of scientist practitioners realised that it should never have been included - it was regarded as an illness purely because of conservative bigotry.

Eoghan-psych

mrben wrote:

God will send you straight to hell for all eternity.

It that means spending all eternity with the likes of Dawkins, Skinner, Lovaas, Darwin, Pasteur, Eysenck etc etc etc then BRING IT ON.

If heaven exists, I certainly don't want to spend so much as a weekend there - imagine being locked up with all the Fred Phelps and Ratzingers of the world. Yuck.

nesf

Sleepy wrote:

So, you think you're doing your friends a favour by allowing their bigotry go unqestioned?

No they are not bigots about it. They know that I am bi and have never had a problem with it. They just would not be comfortable with me talking about what sex with a guy is like. Which is fair enough in my opinion.

In my mind they are more than entitled to not feel comfortable with the subject. It would only be when they judged and accused people because of it that they were doing something wrong.

For instance they have gay friends, they have never discriminated against them, they just don't fell the same way. They've drank in gay bars and not batted an eyelid at the goings on. But they don't want to personally do anything with another man.

I wouldn't consider them bigots, they just are missing out

pretty-in-pink

I think, when discussing something as emotive as religon, that one should remember "Judge not lest you be judged".

I respect that other people have different beliefs then me, I'd like to learn about them, I believe that God is loving and forgiving and if you lead a good life you don't need to worry about eternal damnation. The only thing that is an issue to me is how some people feel that they have free reign to insult others over their beliefs. Its completely immoral, no matter what way you look at it.

As for why giving out about someone believing in God, and giving out about homophobia is wrong....well religon is supposed to breed love,understanding and tolerance. For those that claim to be religous, but do completely ignorant things (the prodestants+catholics up north,those islams who kill people,the preists who abused children etc) then they do deserve to face trouble for their actions. Homophobia and extremism in religon are ways to mistreat people and to allow free range of hatred, and as such they should be fought againnst. However people with a belief system that doesn't try harm others and makes them better people shouln't be criticised. They aren't hurting anyone.

Why are there people so quick to jump on religon and attack it? Attack those who are doing wrong if you must- but making generilisations will not do anyone any good.

nesf

naughty_girl wrote:

I think, when discussing something as emotive as religon, that one should remember "Judge not lest you be judged".

I think when discussing something as emotive as religion that one should remember not to quote from the scripture of one's own beliefs.

pretty-in-pink

I think its a pretty good moral ethic by itself. Some of our modern day-to-day sayings come from the bible.


"people in greenhouses..."
and
"let he who is without sin..."

"judge not lest ye be judged"
and
"don't judge someone till you've walked a mile in their shoes"

are pretty alike

Its all sound advice

nesf

naughty_girl wrote:

I think its a pretty good moral ethic by itself. Some of our modern day-to-day sayings come from the bible.


"people in greenhouses..."
and
"let he who is without sin..."

"judge not lest ye be judged"
and
"don't judge someone till you've walked a mile in their shoes"

are pretty alike

Its all sound advice

Eh, "judge not lest yee be judged" is nothing like "don't judge someone till you've walked a mile in their shoes".

One threatens you with being judged for taking it upon yourself to judge another, the other tells you to look at it from the perspective of the person in question.

In fact, apart from the word judge being in both of them, they are not alike in anyway.

Quantum

Zukustious wrote:

Why is it morally wrong to crticise a religion.

I don't know who you are talking with... but there is nothing morally wrong about criticising someone's religion.
You may be confusing it with bad manners or something - but it is certainly not immoral.

This is partly inspired by the thread about the catholic church losing it's touch. Why is it that I am obliged to respect someone's beliefs? Say if I were to proclaim that most religions are preposterous, I would, for some reason, be frowned upon. I don't get it.

There you go... what are you talking about... morals or good manners ?

If something is obviously silly, why is it that I have to accept the fact that people follow this way of life, and not point out how crazy it is? If I were to tell you of Jeff, the giant giraffe who brings you into some kind of afterlife, would you have to respect that? What's the deal?

It's about simple respect. If you believe in Catholicism or Islam I respect you for your belief. But that doesn't mean I cannot find fault with either Catholicism or Islam.
Catholicism is being undermined by a corrupt and neo conservative clergy while Islam is a thousand years too late for it's reformation and has kept it's people in the dark ages for at least as long while it takes a free ride on the advancement and technology of the western world.
No religion is perfect and the day we stop criticising institutions and long standing beliefs is the day we shuold all give up and throw in the towel.

Talliesin

naughty_girl wrote:

"don't judge someone till you've walked a mile in their shoes"

Because then if they don't like your criticism, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.