Teaching Morality

[JuJube]

It is certainly important for poeple to study morality, including relativism.

Unfortunately, in any discussion of morality, the biblical god will only feature as an example of what not to do.

This is incorrect.
Yes, in the old testament we have all the laws. But they were given as a tutor...to teach what is moral. But it goes further than that because no one was or is able to keep the whole law. So when Jesus came and was asked about which is the greatest law Jesus said "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself". "On these two commandments depend the WHOLE Law and the Prophets. So it was no longer things they couldn't do, just two things they needed to do, and if they did those two, they would not be breaking any of the other commandments. When you love your God and neighbor, you will not covet, steal, lie, or murder him, would you?

 

[levi501]

Am I the only one that laughs when a fundie mentions the word relativism?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This is incorrect.

You are right, and I apologise. I spoke in error. I said that "in any discussion of morality, the biblical god will only feature as an example of what not to do," which is obviously false. Many people hold him up as a moral ideal.

I should have said in any discussion of an equitable, reasonable morality, the biblical god will only feature as an example of what not to do.

Yes, in the old testament we have all the laws.

That's fine - there's nothing immoral about having laws.

But they were given as a tutor...to teach what is moral.

I find they do a very, very bad job of that.

But it goes further than that because no one was or is able to keep the whole law. So when Jesus came and was asked about which is the greatest law Jesus said "You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself". "On these two commandments depend the WHOLE Law and the Prophets. So it was no longer things they couldn't do, just two things they needed to do, and if they did those two, they would not be breaking any of the other commandments. When you love your God and neighbor, you will not covet, steal, lie, or murder him, would you?

I find this 'excuse' to ignore the OT law rather laughable, sorry. Jesus said that the old law shall not pass away - yet Christians today ignore it (when they feel like it). Jesus didn't say if you follow the greatest commandment you could ignore the others - yet Christians do it all the time. Strange.

 

[JuJube]

You are right, and I apologise. I spoke in error. I said that "in any discussion of morality, the biblical god will only feature as an example of what not to do," which is obviously false. Many people hold him up as a moral ideal.

I should have said in any discussion of an equitable, reasonable morality, the biblical god will only feature as an example of what not to do.


That's fine - there's nothing immoral about having laws.


I find they do a very, very bad job of that.


I find this 'excuse' to ignore the OT law rather laughable, sorry. Jesus said that the old law shall not pass away - yet Christians today ignore it (when they feel like it). Jesus didn't say if you follow the greatest commandment you could ignore the others - yet Christians do it all the time. Strange.

Please give the reference where he said that the law will pass away. What He did say was "Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." OT law I agree did not do a good job in making people better, but it did do it's job. Gal.3:20 that through the law came the knowledge of sin. We can honestly ALL look at it and see that we can not keep it.

 

[quatona]

Sorry I figured people would read that and say---who----Hypocrits (and thus bad)?

I guess I thought some people would have figured it out.

Whilst I guess everyone immediately figured out where the flaws in your argument are, if you want to fabricate hypocrisy from it.

 

[JuJube]

Please give the reference where he said that the law will pass away. What He did say was "Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." OT law I agree did not do a good job in making people better, but it did do it's job. Gal.3:20 that through the law came the knowledge of sin. We can honestly ALL look at it and see that we can not keep it.

Sorry Electric, the post will not let me edit. But I meant give me the reference for that the law will NOT pass away. But I do believe you are probably speaking about the next couple of verses Mat. 5:18-20 v. 20 is crucial. Unless your rigteousness EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Am I the only one that laughs when a fundie mentions the word relativism?

I don't know. But I do know I am not the only one who wonders why you care so much.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Sorry Electric, the post will not let me edit. But I meant give me the reference for that the law will NOT pass away. But I do believe you are probably speaking about the next couple of verses Mat. 5:18-20 v. 20 is crucial. Unless your rigteousness EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17.

 

[Texas Lynn]

"To educate a man in mind and not in morality is to educate a menace to society"


-Theodore Roosevelt


All the nation's best leaders have understood the importance of people learning to behave morally.

TR was a complex man; not an intellectual, but a great man nonetheless, who understood retail politics and created the persona which made him popular. This Northeastern scion of wealth and privilege was able to convince the rubes he was a simple, macho cowboy...sounds vaguely reminiscent of someone else. Of course TR was a reformer and opposed the concentration of wealth. Yet among TRs shortcomings was his certainty when speaking in platitudes, from the current quote to his admonition to white (Anglo-Saxon) women to be more fertile lest America be overrun with minorities of color, Italians, Jews, and so on.

As a stand alone message, the quote is reasonable enough; its application, however, is problematic. It is not referring, for instance, to miscegination, homosexuality, pornography, or nudism any more than it is to avarice, ostentatious displays of wealth, oppression, racism, and so, and perhaps a lot less.

In the establishment of the Midwest it was actually noted that religion and morality should be taught alongside science and history in school and are necessary for the making of good citizens. Cool beans huh? Maybe we should let God and Aesop back in the classroom. Then maybe we won't have the Trenchcoat Mafia.

The suburban ethos had more to do with creation of the "Trenchcoat Mafia" than anything related to the lack of official prayer and removal of certain "dead white male" authors from the curriculum. The values the TCM learned at home were the origins of the Columbine Massacre. The school environment merely immersed them in a social environment in which others were different from them. The presence or lack of presence of official prayer and curiculum alternatives were miniscule in effect here, except as touted by political opportunists.

Do you agree that it is important for people to study morality instead of relativism?

As was correctly noted the positing of such a false dichotomy is the height of a worldview in some ways divorced from reality.

Actually where discussions of "studying morality" have been brought forth in public schools---lessons such as the "Who would you save in the event of a nuclear attack" type scenarios---it has been the right wing extremists who have objected to such. We've used those in Sunday School but I doubt they do in any of the conservative churches unless it's under the radar. There the "morality" being taught is more heavily weighted toward alleged sexual sins and so forth with hardly a whistle about avarice, unlike the Bible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Hmm, well, it seems these days that 'diversity' has become a trojan horse.

And what would you propose to teach in its stead?

 

[KarateCowboy]

And what would you propose to teach in its stead?

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Hmm, well, it seems these days that 'diversity' has become a trojan horse.

A "Trojan Horse" for what?

 

[quatona]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty.

Doesn´t sound like the antagonist of "diversity", to me.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Religion in public schools: no.

Teaching values and character: yes.

 

[Shemjaza]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

You know what, I actually agree.

I'm pleased and impressed that you didn't feel the need to add faith and devotion to the supernatural to that list. If I had a child I'd be happy for them to lean that set of virtues (I'd tech them myself of course).

I'm happy that you accept that people can be taught to honour and respect their fellow man without resorting to any particular religion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

All noble pursuits, to be sure, and none of them limited to any one culture.

 

[The Nihilist]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

This is a terrible idea. This kind of thing doesn't need to be learned in the way that alegbra does; everyone already knows what these words mean. How could this possibly be taught? Should kids be taught why these things are impotant? I'm not convinced that this could be done in any way that is satisfactory to a smart kid, and I can't imagine this whole thing would take more than thirty minutes. Or is it to really be an attempt at making kids think that what the bible says is the way it is?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Am I the only one that laughs when a fundie mentions the word relativism?

Others do this

 

[Texas Lynn]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

All certainly acceptable, though some may assume "modesty" means no exposed bellybuttons. Au contraire. The real meaning of modesty is found in the story of the naming of the town of Modesto, California. It was proposed it be named after one founder, who demurred, saying he alone certainly was not worthy. So they named it for him anyway, calling it "Modesto" which is Spanish for 'a modest man".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Honesty, integrity, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, hard work, charity, honor, modesty. Stuff like that. I think we can agree, sir, that those things are far more valuable than variety and the spices of life.

How would these be taught? Can an appreciation for virtue really be taught in a classroom? If you tell your students that hard work is a virtue, will they now enjoy their homework assignments?


eudaimonia,

Mark