Morality Question

[bulldog86]

If my actions infringe on another individuals right to choose their destiny in any way concievable, I am in the wrong.

What if my destiny is to see you commit suicide and your destiny is to keep living. By continuing to live, you are infringing on my destiny. My committing suicide is infringing on my desire to live.... Who's destiny is more important?

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

What if my destiny is to see you commit suicide and your destiny is to keep living. By continuing to live, you are infringing on my destiny. My committing suicide is infringing on my desire to live.... Who's destiny is more important?

this is quite telling about your mind in particular

 

[KatebTheChaotic]

by moral code, your destiny could not infringe upon mine...

youre going out on a very thin limb on that one bulldog

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Destiny is a bad word to use as it implies absolute. Secondly bull dogs reason is illogical, it's impossible to know your destiny or that of others. To say it infringes upon your destiny, as bulldog said, is to deny the existence of free will as well.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is "To infringe upon anothers chosen path, so long as it causes no harm, would put you in the wrong". Same thing as you said earlier with an added CYA (cover your bum) for those situations where force is necesarry to protect the innocent.


As for myself I have 3 basic rules for morality

1- If it helps or brings happiness to people it's good.
2- If it brings harm to innocent people it's bad.
3- If it does neither then it is neutral.

Perfectly logical, intelligent, non religous rules that lead the way to any just law.

 

[bulldog86]

by moral code, your destiny could not infringe upon mine...

youre going out on a very thin limb on that one bulldog

But neither could yours infringe upon mine...

this is quite telling about your mind in particular

Oh please, it's called an analogy. I generally go for the strongest analogy possible... Somehow saying, "We both want a piece of cake. Who gets it?" just doesn't get the point across.

[...] Secondly bull dogs reason is illogical [...]

Just operating within his metaphor...

 

[tcampen]

Bulldog, great responses. No major disagreements with you for the most part, but I do have a few responses to make....

Deut. 15:12-18 states exactly what I said. They'll be freed in the seventh year and were to be "furnish[ed] ... liberally" (NASB, v14). And it DOES apply to women... see the end of v17 "And also you shall do likewise to your maidservant."

Read the Exodus verse in context. It basically says, "You can sell men to wherever you wish, but you can't sell women to a foreign country. If you don't like her, she goes free, but you can't sell her..."

Exodus 21:7-8 (NASB) "'And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her."

But you ignored Leviticus 25:45-46, which states: "You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." FOR LIFE pretty much means FOR LIFE, and not 7 years.

And you need to quote earlier in Exodus, which states: "2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Over and over again we see rules regarding slavery that extend for periods far greater than 6 or 7 years. I don't disagree that there are some rules for treatment of slaves, but they still are slaves. And no matter how one could characterize slavery status according to the OT, I still find it a violation of fundamental, unalienable rights that belong to each individual regardless of culture, religion, or time in history. To say otherwise would fall into relative morality to an extent that even beyond my tolerance. But that's just my opinion.

My morality is based on God. Man's law is secular and should stay as such... though I DO fear what may happen when man decides to change his laws...

But man has changed his laws since the beginning of America. Look at slavery, prohibition, women's right to vote, the voting age, the draft, racial segregation...I could go on and on and on. Do you propose we reverse all of these changes?

Good point, but Empire never was Christian. Constantine was, but he just made the "official" religion Christianity. You think that the majority of the people in the empire genuinely believed Christianity? Think again... The Emperor wants Christians... "Yes, sire, Jesus is my Savior... and thanks for the promotion."

Then what nation ever was Christian? If Post-Constantine Rome never was, then certain America never was. America never had the official sanctioning of Christianity. In fact, just the opposite. Out greatest symbols - Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Lincoln - all were not christains, at least not such that any born-again Christain today would call a Christian. They were all deists, at best. While I do agree that most people in America, at least, do consider themselves to be "christian," I seriously doubt you would find much consensus on what that term even means if you were able to get them all in the same room.

 

[Ben johnson]

Out greatest symbols - Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Lincoln - all were not christains, at least not such that any born-again Christain today would call a Christian. They were all deists, at best.

You are victim of the "HISTORY REVISIONISTS". May I suggest a video for you, "America's Founding Fathers"? You can order it through Wallbuilder's Association. Happy to provide you with an address if you wish.

Washington's CHRISTIANITY was deep and profound. I bet you've never heard of the supernateral events in the French-Indian war, not to mention HIGHLY suspicious fogs that happened on a couple of occasions for our own American forefathers --- obscuring the BRITS but clearing our SOLDIERS. There is a book, "The Prayers of Washington". Whatever spirituality _I_ possess pales in comparison with GW's.

Please let me know if you want the address for that video; it's a documentary, and quotes Founding Father after Founding Father after Founding Father...

(OR you could just remain in a belief that was carefully sculpted by liberals, and never know the TRUTH; do you think for yourself or just accept the words of others?)

 

[tcampen]

You are victim of the "HISTORY REVISIONISTS". May I suggest a video for you, "America's Founding Fathers"? You can order it through Wallbuilder's Association. Happy to provide you with an address if you wish.

Washington's CHRISTIANITY was deep and profound. I bet you've never heard of the supernateral events in the French-Indian war, not to mention HIGHLY suspicious fogs that happened on a couple of occasions for our own American forefathers --- obscuring the BRITS but clearing our SOLDIERS. There is a book, "The Prayers of Washington". Whatever spirituality _I_ possess pales in comparison with GW's.

Please let me know if you want the address for that video; it's a documentary, and quotes Founding Father after Founding Father after Founding Father...

(OR you could just remain in a belief that was carefully sculpted by liberals, and never know the TRUTH; do you think for yourself or just accept the words of others?)

Perhaps you'd like to read the writings of these indiduals penned in their own hand. Read Thomas Jefferson's and Benjamin Franklin's and John Adams' own letters and authobiographies. You will not find Pat Robertson Christians, or anything that remotely resembles the Christian Right of America today. George Washington is an enigma religiously. He rarely went to church, and when he did, would not kneel nor take part in the eucharist. Even on his deathbed he did not utter any religious sentiments. There are other things that point to Washington being a Christian, and others details that see him as much more of a Deist. And Lincoln's closests confidants stated that Lincoln was not a Christian, but perhaps even an athiest. (Although I think we was likely a diest as well.)

I took a look at that "Wallbuilders" website. In order to judge its credibility, I examined its take on Jefferson specifically, where they attacked the conventional concept of the "separation of church and state." I must say that I found the site's treatment of Jefferson's beliefs to be packed full of half-truths, inuendo, and mischaracterisations. They tried to assert that Jefferson believed the 1st Amendment establishment clause only meant to prevent the establishment of a particular Christian denomination. ("Myth of Separation" ring a bell anyone?) This too is so blatently inaccurate of how Jefferson thought that I am forced to call into question the integrity of the entire site.

I do recognize that many, perhaps even most, of the framers were christian in a sense we would recognize today. But current musings that they all understood the 1st Amendment's establishment clause's reference to "religion" really meant "particular Christian denomination" is the epitemy of Revisionist History. Some perhaps did feel this way, but you would have to believe the framers to be careless idiots to use such broad wording.

I am constantly amazed at attempts of some people to try to establish a christian theocracy in America, without recognizing the obviouse dangers of doing so. What Christianity is, what it means to be a Christian, even the core beliefs of christianity are all very much up to debate depending on the denomination. There is no such thing as "generic Christianity," and therefore establishing Christianity generally as the official religion is impossible with specifically adhering to a particular form of it. And this in it itself would violate even the point the "Myth of Separation" types are trying to make. (I very much doubt the "Myth" types would approve of Jefferson's Christianity where the divinity of Jesus and all supernatural events on the Gospels are rejected.)

If nothing else, look at Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" where he argued against public funding of teachers of Christianity. (You'll remember that Madison was the guy behind the 1st Amendment.

Again - read what these guy thought in their own words. That is hardly revisionist history.

 

[revolutio]

Winners write the history books. Of course it seems like the heavens aligned to allow the Americans to triumph over the British.

 

[Ben johnson]

I am constantly amazed at attempts of some people to try to establish a christian theocracy in America, without recognizing the obviouse dangers of doing so.

With respect, this is silly. I've never heard of ANYONE "trying to establish a Christian theocracy in America". But to the CONTRARY, liberalism is striving to BANISH religious influence. Take the "Ten Commandments" thing in Alabama; viewing such a sculpture is NO LESS OFFENSIVE than seeing "In God We Trust" on our money, than reading "Nature and Nature's God; ...imbued by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence; no less offensive than the WORDS to our own NATIONAL ANTHEM: "The Heav'n-rescued-land; ...then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: 'IN GOD IS OUR TRUST' "; no less offensive than having CONGRESS OPEN WITH PRAYER, as it has CONTINUOUSLY for the past 227 years. No less offensive than the MANY Scriptural references carved on OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. Are we now to REMOVE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE THINGS? Will we still be able to call it AMERICA if we do?

I've read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Church; and I do not find the "two-way-wall-of-separation" that liberals now espouse.

If you order "Our Founding Fathers", there IS another video entitled: "The Myth of Separation"; I have that one too. You will find that one a challenge, as you write down quote after quote, and dates, providing you with ample opportunity to run to the library to either prove or contradict the assertions.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Ben, with all due respect, as you seem like a guy who cares and think a lot about issues nobody is trying to banish religion here. Even the ACLU and AU believe that you can pray at your home, in your church, read your bible's and even send your kids to a private christian school without government interference.

What we do object to is a violation of church state separation, because that makes us atheists feel like second class citizens and violates Freedom of Conscience.


The "In God We Trust" has been kept on our currency because the Supreme Court has ruled that it has "lost its religious significance." Something I believe your very post disproves.

And while you may not explicitly want a theocracy, your's and many Christians' actions in this case speak louder then words. Many people deny they want a lot of things, Stormfront denies that they are white supremists, PETA denies that it is militant, and parapsychologists deny that they are pseudoscientists: but mere denial does not make their claims true.


Perhaps the fundamenatlists in this nation do not want an authoritarian theocracy like Afghanistan and Iraq but its pretty clear that they wish for a majoritarian one, one where the majority votes for what religious view the government will support.

But if that's the case what's to prevent them from just voting for the idea that atheists should just be shot? In principle there would be no difference, the only safeguard against both would be Freedom of Conscience and in both cases it would be discarded.


I don't understand why it is Christians fear the idea of government not supporting any belief system so much. Can Christianity not stand on its own merits? Does it really need government protection and force on a captive audience?

 

[bulldog86]

I don't understand why it is Christians fear the idea of government not supporting any belief system so much. Can Christianity not stand on its own merits? Does it really need government protection and force on a captive audience?

Hardly. Look back through history. The times when you see GENUINE Church flourishes (in other words, don't say, "The Roman Empire under Constantinople") are often in the times of the greatest government persecution.

In any case, I STRONGLY dislike the ACLU because they are incredibly hypocritical. Now, I happen to agree with them in this case (10 Commandments improperly displayed... it seems very clear to me that this isn't just a display showing the framework of our legal system, but, rather, is an attempt by Jugde Moore to have governmental support and sanction for Christianity alone... which I believe is legally and ethically wrong), but that doesn't mean I like them.

In example... I was watching Fox News, and they had a story about a girl suing (sp?) her state, I believe. She had been given a free ride scholarship to the state school, but had it revoked when she chose to major in religious studies.... and some ACLU attorney was on the program talking about separation of church and state and how scholarships can be given to anyone UNLESS they want to study any sort of religion. If they want to study Philosophy, fine. Give 'em Niche and Voltaire, but, for heaven sakes, don't give them C.S. Lewis or Francis Shaeffer.... If they want to study macro-evolutionary science, here's ten thousand bucks to do so... But young-earth creationist science... pull that out of your own pocket. Biggest hypocrisy ever. Any respect (there really was a teeny-weeny smidgen of it) that I had for the ACLU before that case has gone down the drain. Just a bunch of anti-religion hypocrites.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Hardly. Look back through history. The times when you see GENUINE Church flourishes (in other words, don't say, "The Roman Empire under Constantinople") are often in the times of the greatest government persecution.

In any case, I STRONGLY dislike the ACLU because they are incredibly hypocritical. Now, I happen to agree with them in this case (10 Commandments improperly displayed... it seems very clear to me that this isn't just a display showing the framework of our legal system, but, rather, is an attempt by Jugde Moore to have governmental support and sanction for Christianity alone... which I believe is legally and ethically wrong), but that doesn't mean I like them.

In example... I was watching Fox News, and they had a story about a girl suing (sp?) her state, I believe. She had been given a free ride scholarship to the state school, but had it revoked when she chose to major in religious studies.... and some ACLU attorney was on the program talking about separation of church and state and how scholarships can be given to anyone UNLESS they want to study any sort of religion. If they want to study Philosophy, fine. Give 'em Niche and Voltaire, but, for heaven sakes, don't give them C.S. Lewis or Francis Shaeffer.... If they want to study macro-evolutionary science, here's ten thousand bucks to do so... But young-earth creationist science... pull that out of your own pocket. Biggest hypocrisy ever. Any respect (there really was a teeny-weeny smidgen of it) that I had for the ACLU before that case has gone down the drain. Just a bunch of anti-religion hypocrites.

Well if the ACLU did that I would agree that it was being hypocritical. I myself have been somewhat ambivalent on how I view the organization. Overall I see them as doing more good then harm though. Would you happen to have a link to the event perhaps? Or was it just on Fox news?

 

[bulldog86]

Well, I can't find it on Foxnews.com anywhere.... And they don't have a way to search just their sight that I found... It was on the O'reilly factor a week or so ago, but it's not in the section for the O'reilly factor... so I won't be insulted if you don't take my word for it

 

[tcampen]

With respect, this is silly. I've never heard of ANYONE "trying to establish a Christian theocracy in America". But to the CONTRARY, liberalism is striving to BANISH religious influence. Take the "Ten Commandments" thing in Alabama; viewing such a sculpture is NO LESS OFFENSIVE than seeing "In God We Trust" on our money, than reading "Nature and Nature's God; ...imbued by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence; no less offensive than the WORDS to our own NATIONAL ANTHEM: "The Heav'n-rescued-land; ...then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: 'IN GOD IS OUR TRUST' "; no less offensive than having CONGRESS OPEN WITH PRAYER, as it has CONTINUOUSLY for the past 227 years. No less offensive than the MANY Scriptural references carved on OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS. Are we now to REMOVE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE THINGS? Will we still be able to call it AMERICA if we do?

I've read Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Church; and I do not find the "two-way-wall-of-separation" that liberals now espouse.

If you order "Our Founding Fathers", there IS another video entitled: "The Myth of Separation"; I have that one too. You will find that one a challenge, as you write down quote after quote, and dates, providing you with ample opportunity to run to the library to either prove or contradict the assertions.

Yes, I was referring to "The Myth of Separation" in my last post. Hardly a piece of scholarly work, trying to assert that the establishment clause really meant "congress shall not establish a particular Christian denomination as the state government, but everyone known Christianity is the official religion of the United States..." This notion is the epitemy of Revisionist History. While undoubtably SOME founders held this view, this was not the majority opinion. Like I said, how can one reconcile Madison's beliefs (who happened to be the original author of the 1st Amendment) with such a position? In fact, Madison looked to Jefferson's work for religious freedom in Virginia for inspiration.

And as far as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, you are correct in that He does not specifically state whether that "wall" was intended to be a two-way block, but it does not say it wasn't either. To understand Jefferson's intentions, one must read a bit more of his personal writings.

After doing so, no reasonable person could have any doubt that Jefferson did NOT want the federal government to establish ANY religion, including Christianity.

Finally, you have failed to address which version of Christianity congress could establish. There is no generic Christianity. Certainly Jefferson's Christianity would be rejected by nearly all Christians today. See what I mean? The founders recognized that the establishment of any religion by the government would necessarily lead to the oppression of all other beliefs. And this is NOT revisionist history, but the wisdom of those that created religious freedom for darn good reasons.

 

[feral]

Morality isn't based on following the laws - neither laws of the government or of a holy text like the Bible. If you do the right thing only because you're told to then you are not making a moral choice. You are merely obeying dictates, which does not make you moral.

 

[ZaraDurden]

Ok...I've read a lot of "You can't have morality unless you're a Christian/follow the Bible" posts lately. A lot of them focusing on the idea that Atheists must lack morality because they don't follow the Bible.

I have a question for those of you who believe this (or anyone who wishes to comment, of course ^^)

If the Bible said nothing about murder or stealing (or any other sin, for that matter), do you think you would willingly commit sins? Keeping in mind you still have feelings/a conscious.

Atheists do not lack morality, then are amoral. When you do not believe in god, there is no set of morals to follow. It would be like me asking someone to believe in my imaginary friend Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo and do what he tells you.

You may or may not "commit sins" (meaning "do those acts christians consider sins) depending upon a variety of things, like how you were raised and where you lived.

Morality is basically relative, or else it would not have changed so often over the years... Things that were at one time considered "wrong" or "sins" are not, and things that were not maybe now are.

So many people dont murder or steal not necessarily because of the bible, but because of "the golden rule" -- do unto others -- something that anyone could understand with or without ever hearing the bible.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well our genes and diets have changed a great deal over the years. Does that means genes are relative? Does that mean diet is relative?

So I can eat grass and live a long and healthy life?

Our height has changed a great deal over the years, does that mean height is a fiction, that we can merely say that the idea of height is a social construct?

That means I can say "I am 6 feet tall" and another can say "No you are eighty feet" and we can both be right.

Or that I can change my height just by changing my opinion?

 

[tinkerbell]

Anyone can have morals and morality, they just might not be the same as someone elses.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well I think morality is an emotional mechanism,not a cognitive belief. So there may be variations, but certain aspects tend to remain the same.

Just like the need for food, art and love. We may sometimes disagree on the details, and there may be those few of us born that are incapable of love or feeling pain (when stabbed), those I call sociopaths.

But those few individuals will remain the exception I believe to a very general rule. Morality imo, is as universal as anger and love, perhaps more so.

The question is thus not if morality exists, but how best do we serve our moral sensibilities? And how did these sensibilities come to be?

Those are cognitive issues.