Why Does Religion=Morality?

[Mling]

Seen 'Wanted'?

No. No idea what it's about, either.

 

[Mling]

Really?

In all seriousness (and I apologize for my smug remark), I thought Christians as a whole generally believe that all babies and anyone without a mind to be held accountable (so to speak) go to Heaven.

And this is honestly one of the things that confuses me about the "Great Abortion Debate".

For a good chunk of the medieval period, it was believed that babies are pure Original Sin. They were given enemas regularly, to clean them out, and upper class mothers gave them lower class women to nurse, out of fear that the baby, being so evil, would somehow harm the mother.

A lot of the sadistic abuse of children seen during this chunk of history is due to the belief that beating them drives out the evil.



This idea of babies as being 'innocent,' is actually quite modern.

 

[Zebra1552]

But how are children capable of sinning when they can't even comprehend the concept of what sins are in the first place?

Do you need to know that murder is against the law to commit it?

And are you seriously trying to say that it's okay for God to kill people in large quantities? You must think that human life is valueless, then.

I'm saying it's okay to save an even larger quantity of people from hell. If life is inherently valuable, it would be more morally reprehensible to NOT kill them and save future generations.

 

[Zebra1552]

No. No idea what it's about, either.

It's about a group of assassins whose motto is 'Kill one, save a thousand.'

 

[Mling]

It's about a group of assassins whose motto is 'Kill one, save a thousand.'

Ahh.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Do you need to know that murder is against the law to commit it?

No, but you do need to know what murder is in order to commit it. I mean, if someone didn't even know that it was possible to kill others out of malice, how could that person ever murder anyone?

I'm saying it's okay to save an even larger quantity of people from hell. If life is inherently valuable, it would be more morally reprehensible to NOT kill them and save future generations.

But why are the lives of some less valuable than the lives of others, in your opinion?

 

[Zebra1552]

No, but you do need to know what murder is in order to commit it. I mean, if someone didn't even know that it was possible to kill others out of malice, how could that person ever murder anyone?

Show that your analogy actually fits all sins.

But why are the lives of some less valuable than the lives of others, in your opinion?

You're putting words in my mouth there. I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Show that your analogy actually fits all sins.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about the concept of whether or not it's possible to sin, when one can't understand what a sin is, according to the Bible. I mean, since when can a young child understand philosophical ideas, such as the idea of sinning?

You're putting words in my mouth there. I'd appreciate it if you stopped.

How can you possibly think that all lives are equally valuable, though, if you think that it's okay to kill some people?

 

[Zebra1552]

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about the concept of whether or not it's possible to sin, when one can't understand what a sin is, according to the Bible. I mean, since when can a young child understand philosophical ideas, such as the idea of sinning?

Since when do they need to in order to sin?

How can you possibly think that all lives are equally valuable, though, if you think that it's okay to kill some people?

Because of the numbers involved. I'd rather see 1000 die and go to hell than 1,000,000.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Since when do they need to in order to sin?

Since when do people need to know how to add in order to know how to solve 87+96? Same concept.

Because of the numbers involved. I'd rather see 1000 die and go to hell than 1,000,000.

So the numbers matter more to you than the individual people do?

 

[Norbert L]

I'm curious why people seem to feel that religion is necessary for a basic sense of morality. That somehow, if there's no religion, there's no morality.

Why cant we have morality WITHOUT religion?

To give morality to a people, someone has to draw on concepts beyond themself. That does not necessarily include "religion".

The people should know moraltiy is not only drawn from religion, people should not be fooled, there are other active concepts working right now beyond recognized religions.

Hitler convinced enough people that there is more to the future than religion. Think about that and hopefully every person will see that there is another morality readily available to anyone who thinks that only religion provides morality.

Slap your face and wake up!

 

[Skavau]

Who says they're innocent? They live in a culture ripe with sin and are headed to hell. If they had kids, they'd likely go there too. Kill a few, save a lot more. Sounding familiar?

Ah yes, the typical collectivist ideals I always associate with fascism. Not only is it immoral, it is also redundant. Firstly, many Christians and in particular Muslims contend that children are without responsibility. They have not grasped a full understanding of their actions and cannot actually be held accountable. If you are to contend that your childhood is enough to shape your life, then by your logic we may as well kill all children who have grown up in an abusive relationship with their parents because, well, it could shape their future.

A key point which is never raised: God is omniscient and could have resolved the situation without bloodshed. He could have produced a revelation to the children.

He chose destruction, or chose to allow it.

Morality should always be defined in hindsight in what you could have done. God when held to this, almost always did not.

Quite serious. The kids have kids. Then they have kids. They're called descendants. They all follow the way of the ancestors in sinning. They all go to hell. Or God kills them and they don't. Kill a few, save a bunch more. That's why religion is moral.

This logic does not follow. I believe the OP was talking about why, objectively religion is often considered synonymous with morality - not whether God's ideals tie up in the grand scheme of things. Those are claims we have no experience over.

I'm saying it's okay to save an even larger quantity of people from hell. If life is inherently valuable, it would be more morally reprehensible to NOT kill them and save future generations.

Actually this is not a principle of the importance of life, but the importance of the afterlife. If life was considered valuable here, no-one would be killed.

 

[Zebra1552]

Since when do people need to know how to add in order to know how to solve 87+96? Same concept.

No, not really. Do I need to know that the knife I stick in the outlet has electricity that's frying my hand to know that it hurts? No.

So the numbers matter more to you than the individual people do?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Mling]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Now that one's not fair. Your premise in that whole thread has been that it's better for one person to suffer than 10,000. You've said that outright, and that's what it means--that the numbers are what's most important to you.

 

[a_nony_mous]

No, not really. Do I need to know that the knife I stick in the outlet has electricity that's frying my hand to know that it hurts? No.

I'm talking about knowledge of a concept, not knowledge of a sensation. Knowledge of a sensation is inherent, whereas knowledge of a concept is not. Did you really think that analogy would fit in terms of what we've been talking about?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

If the individual people mattered to you, then you wouldn't want anyone to end up in Hell. So I didn't put words in your mouth at all, and my question still stands.

 

[Zebra1552]

Ah yes, the typical collectivist ideals I always associate with fascism. Not only is it immoral, it is also redundant. Firstly, many Christians and in particular Muslims contend that children are without responsibility. They have not grasped a full understanding of their actions and cannot actually be held accountable. If you are to contend that your childhood is enough to shape your life, then by your logic we may as well kill all children who have grown up in an abusive relationship with their parents because, well, it could shape their future.

Um... it was the culture, not the fact that they were 'impacted by childhood'. Abused kids can leave that environment when they grow, these kids couldn't.

A key point which is never raised: God is omniscient and could have resolved the situation without bloodshed. He could have produced a revelation to the children.

...God could also have created us without choice. Would our love still be love if that were the case? And that point is often raised, actually. The point is that there's justification and speaks to Christianity being moral.

He chose destruction, or chose to allow it.

He chose to give us choice. We chose wrong.

Morality should always be defined in hindsight in what you could have done. God when held to this, almost always did not.

You cannot possibly know what God could or could not do.

This logic does not follow. I believe the OP was talking about why, objectively religion is often considered synonymous with morality - not whether God's ideals tie up in the grand scheme of things. Those are claims we have no experience over.

Because it provides a set of standards to follow, as illustrated by God killing those who don't follow it. It follows just fine.

Actually this is not a principle of the importance of life, but the importance of the afterlife. If life was considered valuable here, no-one would be killed.

Life according to a Christian usually refers to both the physical life and the afterlife.

 

[Zebra1552]

I'm talking about knowledge of a concept, not knowledge of a sensation. Knowledge of a sensation is inherent, whereas knowledge of a concept is not. Did you really think that analogy would fit in terms of what we've been talking about?

Yes, just fine.

If the individual people mattered to you, then you wouldn't want anyone to end up in Hell. So I didn't put words in your mouth at all, and my question still stands.

Yes, you did. And you did it again just now by saying that 'individual people matter to me'. All life is equal, which means that quantity does matter. I'll take the thousand in hell over the million in hell any day. I don't think that's wrong. The less people suffering in hell the better.

 

[Skavau]

Um... it was the culture, not the fact that they were 'impacted by childhood'. Abused kids can leave that environment when they grow, these kids couldn't.

What if God 'purged' the culture then? Removed its influence and allowed the children to progress. You've already said God can do anything, and yet when given choice chooses bloodshed rather than redemption.

...God could also have created us without choice. Would our love still be love if that were the case? And that point is often raised, actually. The point is that there's justification and speaks to Christianity being moral.

What are you talking about, sir?

The very thing you are defending concerns God removing choice! It concerns him actively eradicating a whole group of people based on specific ideals for the future. You've already said that perhaps it can be appropriate for God to intervene. So why would it not be preferable for God to intervene in a way that does not cause bloodshed? He can do it: God is omniscient.

But then, if God did intervene rather than not - could you, by your own theistic morality have any grounds to actually reject intervention? Let us say now, hypothetically that God decided that the sinfulness of the world was too much and decided to purge those who were not redeemable (including children) and those who would grow into the wretched.

Would you have any grounds to complain, or to hold exception?

I would: I am not sure you would.

Because it provides a set of standards to follow, as illustrated by God killing those who don't follow it. It follows just fine.

I suggest you learn the concept of debating on common ground. A Muslim could come here and spout ideals with scriptural justification from the Qu'ran as a reason for these ideals being valid. I know that most Christians would remain completely unconvinced. He is arguing ideals that you have to be a Muslim to accept. Similarly your arguments necessitate being a Christian to accept. For me to accept your arguments I would first have to accept that the 'standards' of God are valid. This would involve me changing all my understanding of morality as well as being convinced that God is true.

Something isn't moral just because it is imposed, as your sentence above certainly implies.

 

[Zebra1552]

What if God 'purged' the culture then? Removed its influence and allowed the children to progress. You've already said God can do anything, and yet when given choice chooses bloodshed rather than redemption.

You assume that there was an option between bloodshed and redemption that didn't end up with a worse consequence.

What are you talking about, sir?

The very thing you are defending concerns God removing choice! It concerns him actively eradicating a whole group of people based on specific ideals for the future. You've already said that perhaps it can be appropriate for God to intervene. So why would it not be preferable for God to intervene in a way that does not cause bloodshed? He can do it: God is omniscient.

I'm talking about the limited options God has. Because I believe they are limited and that humanity's existence limits them.

But then, if God did intervene rather than not - could you, by your own theistic morality have any grounds to actually reject intervention? Let us say now, hypothetically that God decided that the sinfulness of the world was too much and decided to purge those who were not redeemable (including children) and those who would grow into the wretched.

Would you have any grounds to complain, or to hold exception?

I would: I am not sure you would.

God promised not to do that again, so yes, I would hold exception. Got any hypothetical situations that don't make God into a liar?

I suggest you learn the concept of debating on common ground. A Muslim could come here and spout ideals with scriptural justification from the Qu'ran as a reason for these ideals being valid. I know that most Christians would remain completely unconvinced. He is arguing ideals that you have to be a Muslim to accept. Similarly your arguments necessitate being a Christian to accept. For me to accept your arguments I would first have to accept that the 'standards' of God are valid. This would involve me changing all my understanding of morality as well as being convinced that God is true.

Something isn't moral just because it is imposed, as your sentence above certainly implies.

In order to follow the morality of the Bible you need to be a Christian. Why is it irrational to make that assumption?

 

[InkBlott]

It is apparently a part of the Christian culture to define morality in terms of orthodoxy. This lends an air of futility to any discussion of morals with those who have made that shift in definition.