view of morality and ethics can rise no higher then your view of God

[grasping the after wind]

[

Higher is more compassionate, more ethical, more righteous and selfless in your dealings with others.

"Lower" is the inverse of that.

So your premise is that followers of gods do not act more compassionately,ethically , righteously and selflessly towards others than than they think they're gods act? I would dispute that to a small degree. I think that many people actually believe they do act more morally upright than their gods. Surely many of the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that. The question is though, did they actually believe in those gods when they were or are of that opinion? And of course their own judgement as to how morally they act may not be a judgement others would agree with.

On second thought though perhaps you meant that followers act only as morally upright as they believe their gods would act ?

 

[Colter]

This is a fantastic statement, and absolutely true. I'll take it one step farther:

The highness of a man's view of God is rated by its accuracy, and his morality can be no better than his understanding of the true nature of God.

Those who fail to understand the true nature of God will never have a sufficient sense of morality, and they will often make statements such as this:



...believing that an external source must be false because it conflicts with your internal source. In other words, you reject the inspiration of scripture in favor of the inspiration of yourself. Every morning when you look in the mirror, I encourage you to burn incense, sing worship songs and pray a prayer as you face your god.

Presumably you believe things that outrage your true sense of justice simply because it's in a holy book. You've been trained to believe that to doubt absurdities reflects badly on you and that its your failure rather that the books claims.

People might claim to love a monster like God in the same way children within an abusive family pretend to respect an inconsistent and irrational Father. Man will only truly love a good God such as was revealed in the life of Christ. He didn't need to say it, he let the false claims of the holy books die on the vine.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Presumably you believe things that outrage your true sense of justice simply because it's in a holy book. You've been trained to believe that to doubt absurdities reflects badly on you and that its your failure rather that the books claims.

People might claim to love a monster like God in the same way children within an abusive family pretend to respect an inconsistent and irrational Father. Man will only truly love a good God such as was revealed in the life of Christ. He didn't need to say it, he let the false claims of the holy books die on the vine.

Explain Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Charlie Manson and a number of pagan deities if you think a person will only love a good god. As for Christ, if you have no use for the Bible where did you come to know of the life of Christ? Do you claim to have divine revelation or to time travel?

 

[Maria.V.H]

For some seeing a homeless person does not elicit any emotional response at all, they are as unaffected as they would be by seeing a leaf in a tree. . For some it elicits a response of loathing. For others a response of annoyance( especially if the homeless person is asking them for something) .For some seeing a homeless person would require them to do something practical about that situation no matter what emotions the homeless person elicited. Crying may make you feel morally upright but is that a practical means of assisting the homeless person? Your tears are no more effective or helpful to that homeless person than the indifference of others. Does your crying equal a moral position at all? IMO one's morality is something one decides upon prior to any situation occurring not something that one feels in response to the occurrence. Emotions are somewhat involuntary responses while, again IMO, morality ought to a well thought out code of conduct which can then be applied to a situation to measure how well one lives up to one's expectations. Under my definition, to act morally would be to do what one said in advance was the good thing to do and to refrain from doing what one said in advance was the evil thing to do and to act immorally would be to do the opposite. Under your definition, there would be nothing one could describe as immoral unless it would be to act in contradiction to one's emotional state. I would then have to assume that if one were to refrain from harming one that one hated one would be acting immorally. So to forgive one's enemy would be an immoral act and to be a Christian and act as a Christian is told to act by Christ one would have to commit the immoral act of denying one's emotions. Therefore I do not see how one's faith can be totally divorced from morality when so much of faith revolves around what is right and what is wrong.

Of course i give them money.

I do many things that are wrong too, the difference is how i know it is wrong, and that has nothing to do with anything written for me, that is the core of humanity. I feel it is wrong, i feel it, not because it says so in a book but because i feel it. The things i feel i do wrong i have felt was wrong even before i believed in God. The thing is understanding why it is wrong, and why we do the things we do, just because it is written is not enough. We have to get to a point of understanding why it is written, why is it wrong and why we do the things we do and take responsibility for our actions.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Of course i give them money.

I do many things that are wrong too, the difference is how i know it is wrong, and that has nothing to do with anything written for me, that is the core of humanity. I feel it is wrong, i feel it, not because it says so in a book but because i feel it. The things i feel i do wrong i have felt was wrong even before i believed in God. The thing is understanding why it is wrong, and why we do the things we do, just because it is written is not enough. We have to get to a point of understanding why it is written, why is it wrong and why we do the things we do and take responsibility for our actions.

But what you are describing here is reason not emotion.

 

[Maria.V.H]

But what you are describing here is reason not emotion.

Yes maybe to you, i see it as emotional understanding

 

[david.d]

I think your morality is relative to your fear of God or your god. Whether you realize it or not. If God writes his law in your heart, then however much you embrace His law determines your fear and servitude.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes maybe to you, i see it as emotional understanding

Just as faith needs no proof, emotion needs no understanding. Reason needs to understand . Emotion only needs to feel.

 

[Colter]

Explain Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Charlie Manson and a number of pagan deities if you think a person will only love a good god. As for Christ, if you have no use for the Bible where did you come to know of the life of Christ? Do you claim to have divine revelation or to time travel?

None of those are Gods nor were they loved by the same people that they abused.

I didn't say I have no use for the Bible, you did. I said the Bible is very human, not written by God. It's a lot like the newspaper, bias, imperfect, but you can get some idea of what happened.

 

[Maria.V.H]

Just as faith needs no proof, emotion needs no understanding. Reason needs to understand . Emotion only needs to feel.

I think it depends on what our reality is, your reality does not have to be the same as mine and vice versa. I might be a very different person then, but i understand when i feel...

 

[BobRyan]

[



So your premise is that followers of gods do not act more compassionately,ethically , righteously and selflessly towards others than than they think they're gods act? I would dispute that to a small degree. I think that many people actually believe they do act more morally upright than their gods. Surely many of the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that. The question is though, did they actually believe in those gods when they were or are of that opinion? And of course their own judgement as to how morally they act may not be a judgement others would agree with.

On second thought though perhaps you meant that followers act only as morally upright as they believe their gods would act ?

Indeed the latter - they seldom reach for a higher standard than they believe the god that they worship - has for ethics and morality. I think this is particularly true in the monotheistic religions.

 

[grasping the after wind]

None of those are Gods nor were they loved by the same people that they abused.

You may think they were not gods but there are those that will tell you the god you believe in is no more a real god then they. They were all treated as gods by their followers so the point I made is a valid one. Also you said.

Man will only truly love a good God

So you can't now move the goal posts and retroactively change your statement to include only those that they abused? And even then I would beg to differ as many of the abused love their god figure not in spite of but because of the abuse. As in the Stockholm Syndrome and the Flagellants. Masochism is not all that unusual a trait in humans.

I didn't say I have no use for the Bible, you did. I said the Bible is very human, not written by God. It's a lot like the newspaper, bias, imperfect, but you can get some idea of what happened.

Well I guess I was mistaken( not an unusual occurrance either) .You do seem to have a bit of use for the Bible. From my perspective that would be to cherry pick it to confirm your own biases. The problem with the newspaper analogy is that there are other media and competing media with other biases and that there are ways to check for inaccuracies that are nor available for large parts of the Bible so any revisionism is simply conjecture and not anything based upon an examination of facts. Though we may point to scientific investigation to point out that the biblical accounts do not jibe with the scientific evidence in some places that is very different than saying the Bible is not to be trusted theologically. It is a book of religion not science or history and becaause of that not every story in it needs to be taken as historically or scientifically accurate nor every word to be taken as a literal one when it comes to trusting the biblical theology. There is no way to debunk the theology other than simply refusing to believe it for no other reason than personal preference. If one is to completely reject any one part of the Bible as false theology then one has no basis to trust any other part on theological grounds because there is no competeing set of theological evidence to reference as there is with scientific evidence or historical records. To say something is meant allegorically or as a lesson or parable but not to be taken literally is very much different than to say that the Bible is untrustworthy in some part as a theological text.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think it depends on what our reality is, your reality does not have to be the same as mine and vice versa. I might be a very different person then, but i understand when i feel...

There is only one reality. Perceptions may differ but what is remains what is and what is not remains what is not. A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. So our reality( always singular) will always be the same but how we decide to perceive that reality may well differ.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Indeed the latter - they seldom reach for a higher standard than they believe the god that they worship - has for ethics and morality. I think this is particularly true in the monotheistic religions.

I would think that the monotheists expect that their God is the highest standard. I know I do and I am a monotheist. If one believes in a Creator God, how could one then believe that there is some moral standard that exists which the Creator of all did not create and ought to conform to?

 

[Colter]

You may think they were not gods but there are those that will tell you the god you believe in is no more a real god then they. They were all treated as gods by their followers so the point I made is a valid one. Also you said.



So you can't now move the goal posts and retroactively change your statement to include only those that they abused? And even then I would beg to differ as many of the abused love their god figure not in spite of but because of the abuse. As in the Stockholm Syndrome and the Flagellants. Masochism is not all that unusual a trait in humans.




Well I guess I was mistaken( not an unusual occurrance either) .You do seem to have a bit of use for the Bible. From my perspective that would be to cherry pick it to confirm your own biases. The problem with the newspaper analogy is that there are other media and competing media with other biases and that there are ways to check for inaccuracies that are nor available for large parts of the Bible so any revisionism is simply conjecture and not anything based upon an examination of facts. Though we may point to scientific investigation to point out that the biblical accounts do not jibe with the scientific evidence in some places that is very different than saying the Bible is not to be trusted theologically. It is a book of religion not science or history and becaause of that not every story in it needs to be taken as historically or scientifically accurate nor every word to be taken as a literal one when it comes to trusting the biblical theology. There is no way to debunk the theology other than simply refusing to believe it for no other reason than personal preference. If one is to completely reject any one part of the Bible as false theology then one has no basis to trust any other part on theological grounds because there is no competeing set of theological evidence to reference as there is with scientific evidence or historical records. To say something is meant allegorically or as a lesson or parable but not to be taken literally is very much different than to say that the Bible is untrustworthy in some part as a theological text.

You said:
"It is a book of religion not science or history and becaause of that not every story in it needs to be taken as historically or scientifically accurate nor every word to be taken as a literal one when it comes to trusting the biblical theology."

I agree. But not everyone agrees with that.

Let me be clear, I think that the people capable of killing the Son of God were capable of exaggerating certain aspects of their traditional history Literally in the wake of loosing Jerusalem and finding themselves in captivity again in Babylon.

Jesus proved that the true God was very different than his followers expectations of him were.

Theology? Who's theology? Thousands of variations of theology have been extrapolated from the same text.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Consider this -

Man will never achieve a morality or concept of ethics that is higher than his/her view of God.

Does that not explain to some extent the actions of violent Muslims?

In every case they affirm that their view of God affirms their actions and that he is just like them if not more so - in that regard

Thoughts?

I don't disagree with your premise from a Christian standpoint. My morality and ethics are strongly rooted in my Christian faith. But in the larger sense I see two major flaws in your statement.

1. Atheists do not believe in God. If your statement was true, atheists would be totally devoid of any sense of morality or ethics. We know that's not the case.

2. Regarding violent Muslims: evil people will always look for some way to justify their evil. That's not exclusive to the Islamic world. Jim Jones preached from the Bible and was responsible for the deaths of 918 people. I doubt anyone here would consider Jones an example of Christianity.

 

[BobRyan]

I would think that the monotheists expect that their God is the highest standard. I know I do and I am a monotheist. If one believes in a Creator God, how could one then believe that there is some moral standard that exists which the Creator of all did not create and ought to conform to?

Indeed many reasons for them not to try to exceed the standard that is set by their image of what/who God is and how high His standard of morals/ethics/Love extends.

So then if they settle upon a very low standard for their image of God - they themselves as likely to have an even lower standard that they conform to on an everyday basis - which gets us back to such an example as given in the OP for the violent form of Muslim-- monotheist and all

 

[BobRyan]

I don't disagree with your premise from a Christian standpoint. My morality and ethics are strongly rooted in my Christian faith. But in the larger sense I see two major flaws in your statement.

1. Atheists do not believe in God. If your statement was true, atheists would be totally devoid of any sense of morality or ethics. We know that's not the case.

2. Regarding violent Muslims: evil people will always look for some way to justify their evil. That's not exclusive to the Islamic world. Jim Jones preached from the Bible and was responsible for the deaths of 918 people. I doubt anyone here would consider Jones an example of Christianity.

I argue that their standard would not exceed the level of ethics, morality etc - than the god they worship. Weather that be their "god of reason" or god of evolutionism etc or simply mammon. But as I stated in the OP with that monotheist example of Muslims... I think this rule is particularly noticeable among monotheists.

 

[Maria.V.H]

There is only one reality. Perceptions may differ but what is remains what is and what is not remains what is not. A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. So our reality( always singular) will always be the same but how we decide to perceive that reality may well differ.

So what is the reality??????

 

[ChristianFromKazakhstan]

Consider this -

Man will never achieve a morality or concept of ethics that is higher than his/her view of God.

Does that not explain to some extent the actions of violent Muslims?

In every case they affirm that their view of God affirms their actions and that he is just like them if not more so - in that regard

Thoughts?

In all due respect, and as a Christian, I do not think we are in a position to judge Islam at all. Why? Because Christians, or countries that the world considers to be majority Christian, have committed and continue to commit far greater atrocities than any Muslim group has ever done and will do. Nobody, nobody can ever outdo Christians in bad bad immoral stuff.

But to answer the question, the prevailing islamophobic view of the West is greatly, greatly exaggerated. Yes, there are religious bad things truly done by Muslims. But 99.99% of so-called "Muslim" bad things are done by groups who were created, trained and are being supported by the Western governments and their puppets in the ME region as political tools.

All of the above is a fact known, like goes without saying, in the rest of the world apart from the Christendom that lives in a sweet bubble of self-deception.

Islam is indeed a religion of peace. It has been proven by history and modern days. I see it myself in the region of Islam. Muslims are the most peaceful and sincere people, true to their faith. Unlike many Christians.