Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Astrid]

Where is atheism more prevalent historically, in rising culture or in decaying cultures?

You tell us and explain where the cause and effect is.

Warfare is the prime mover or science and technology.

Explain what that says for warfare.

 

[RDKirk]

'Conquer the flesh'? Morality is about rather more than naughty bits!

"Conquer the flesh" is about more than naughty bits. From the outside, a Christian who has "conquered the flesh" would look much like a Stoic.

 

[RDKirk]

I do not see any distinction. Morality is the same for us all, surely?

What? Of course not.

It never has been. The brightest aspect of ancient philosophers was the discovery that the moral tenets of any one particular group of people are not laws of nature.

 

[RDKirk]

I believe that Christian and Islamic culture is failing because it is based on false principles, namely the principle that existence is a product of consciousness.

"I think therefore I am." It wasn't a Christian who determined that.

 

[RDKirk]

Killing people is wrong except for countless
exceptions across cultures and time.

Christians used to think it was peachy to kill
heretics and witches, among others.

Stealing? Always wrong under any possible
circumstances?

Some Christians hold that they'd not steal
penny to save their mother's life. Others find
great virtue and heroism in stealing a whole
continent.

That's not even getting into what is " stealing"
or "murder" in other cultures.

Why do you distinguish Christians in all that? Everyone operates that way.

 

[RDKirk]

Well, I think it does. We may differ in our conclusions but the moral issues are the same for us all.

An example or two: I think there is very wide agreement that killing people is wrong and that killers should be punished somehow. There is universal agreement that stealing property belonging to another is wrong.

It all depends on how different cultures define "murder" and "theft" with regard to how they define "person."

 

[Astrid]

Why do you distinguish Christians in all that? Everyone operates that way.

Of course. I did say, "across cultures".
I mentioned Christians coz it's Christian forums.

 

[Whyayeman]

It all depends on how different cultures define "murder" and "theft" with regard to how they define "person."

I don't think so. Those two examples were chosen precisely because different cultures broadly agree in their definitions.

 

[Astrid]

I don't think so. Those two examples were chosen precisely because different cultures broadly agree in their definitions.

Tell us the basic definition

 

[RDKirk]

Of course.
Guess I specified coz it's Christian forums

Where Christians can be called out for special blame is when Christians do what even Christians tell themselves they should not do, and fail to do what Christians tell themselves they should do...and do not call themselves (or each other) out on it. If there is the Holy Spirit we believe there is, Christians should have the tightest adherence to our own moral tenets of any group.

 

[Astrid]

Where Christians can be called out for special blame is when Christians do what even Christians tell themselves they should not do, and fail to do what Christians tell themselves they should do...and do not call themselves (or each other) out on it. If there is the Holy Spirit we believe there is, Christians should have the tightest adherence to our own moral tenets of any group.

Hypocrisy is seldoml cool.
We note though that there is much and often
extreme disagreement on morality within the
religion.
For most of it's history, slavery was fine.
In any event-
I don't agree with your " highest" , at all.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think so. Those two examples were chosen precisely because different cultures broadly agree in their definitions.

Not really. Where they appear to agree in the definition of "murder" and "theft," they will differ in their definition of "person."

And be sure you're talking about truly different cultures. Western European nations, for instance, are not truly different from one another in culture.

A culture's definition of "person" might be the first criterion in identifying that one culture is truly different from another. Another central criterion would how that culture understands the function of time. The third criterion (I'm working on a triad here) would be how a culture determines what a "fact" is (its epistemology). I suspect if we did a study, we'd discover that when those three points differ between cultures, their understanding of "person," "murder," and "theft" also differ.

 

[RDKirk]

Hypocrisy is seldoml cool.
We note though that there is much and often
extreme disagreement on morality within the
religion.
For most of it's history, slavery was fine.
In any event-
I don't agree with your " highest" , at all.

I didn't use the word "highest" anywhere in my post.

 

[Astrid]

Not really. Where they appear to agree in the definition of "murder" and "theft," they will differ in their definition of "person."

And be sure you're talking about truly different cultures. Western European nations, for instance, are not truly different from one another in culture.

A culture's definition of "person" might be the first criterion in identifying that one culture is truly different from another. Another central criterion would how that culture understands the function of time. The third criterion (I'm working on a triad here) would be how a culture determines what a "fact" is (its epistemology). I suspect if we did a study, we'd discover that when those three points differ between cultures, their understanding of "person," "murder," and "theft" also differ.

Is it theft if a soldier takes an enemy aircraft and flies it
back to his country during war?
When does a fertilized egg become a person?

 

[Astrid]

I didn't use the word "highest" anywhere in my post.

True. Its "tightest".
That's a distinction sans difference in this case

 

[Astrid]

"Conquer the flesh" is about more than naughty bits. From the outside, a Christian who has "conquered the flesh" would look much like a Stoic.

Is it about self indulgence in any form?

 

[Whyayeman]

Not really. Where they appear to agree in the definition of "murder" and "theft," they will differ in their definition of "person."

And be sure you're talking about truly different cultures. Western European nations, for instance, are not truly different from one another in culture.

A culture's definition of "person" might be the first criterion in identifying that one culture is truly different from another. Another central criterion would how that culture understands the function of time. The third criterion (I'm working on a triad here) would be how a culture determines what a "fact" is (its epistemology). I suspect if we did a study, we'd discover that when those three points differ between cultures, their understanding of "person," "murder," and "theft" also differ.

I see it has already happened...

None of that differentiates between Christians and non-Christians.

I think I will pass for now on definitions of those two crimes. I think there is broad agreement about what they are. (The definition of 'person' takes us straight to the abortion debate in USA, and I don't go there.)

 

[RDKirk]

Is it theft if a soldier takes an enemy aircraft and flies it
back to his country during war?
When does a fertilized egg become a person?

As examples.

 

[RDKirk]

True. Its "tightest".
That's a distinction sans difference in this case

As I said, if there is a Holy Spirit providing supernatural guidance and exerting supernatural pressure on Christians to adhere to Christian moral standards, then Christians ought to be observed adhering to our own moral standards more tightly than other cultures adhere to theirs.

 

[o_mlly]

I think I will pass for now on definitions of those two crimes.

From our Catechism:

Murder: Directly and intentionally killing an innocent person. "Direct" -- the proximate end in the act is the death of the innocent person.

Stealing: Usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. ​