Why Does Religion=Morality?

[Skavau]

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

Is God omniscient or capricious?

Anything was possible. Aren't all things possible with God?

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

Oh? So you do believe in an impotent God?

How do you figure that humanity's existence can limit God on anything?

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 was talking in a general sense. I am not 'making God' into anything. The point I was making is that if you contend that God is allowed to or has the right to do anything (irrespective of any prior agreements), then by logical conclusion you cannot dispute anything he does. Do you believe God has the right to do anything?

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

I'm not saying that's irrational. I am saying you're making arguments that you have to assume Biblical truth to accept. It doesn't work with atheists, as I am sure you know.

 

[Zebra1552]

[/size][/color][/font]Is God omniscient or capricious?

Anything was possible. Aren't all things possible with God?

Just because God CAN blow the earth up doesn't mean He WILL. So all things are possible, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll happen. God has rules.

Oh? So you do believe in an impotent God?

How do you figure that humanity's existence can limit God on anything?

Because God limits himself. And that's not impotence, it's called self control.

I was talking in a general sense. I am not 'making God' into anything. The point I was making is that if you contend that God is allowed to or has the right to do anything (irrespective of any prior agreements), then by logical conclusion you cannot dispute anything he does. Do you believe God has the right to do anything?

Irrelevant to the discussion. This isn't about God, it's about morality involved in religion. I've made my point. Whether or not you agree is not my business.

I'm not saying that's irrational. I am saying you're making arguments that you have to assume Biblical truth to accept. It doesn't work with atheists, as I am sure you know.

And seeing as the argument is about the morality of religion and has nothing to do with apologetics, I don't care whether or not it 'works' for you. I don't aim to convince you or anyone.

 

[Skavau]

Just because God CAN blow the earth up doesn't mean He WILL. So all things are possible, yes, but that doesn't mean they'll happen. God has rules.

What rules are these? Rules that God imposes on himself (so, behavioural constraint) or a set of absolutes he is bound by?

Because God limits himself. And that's not impotence, it's called self control.

You said that humanity limits Gods options, I ask how, and then you say that he limits himself.

Huh?

Irrelevant to the discussion. This isn't about God, it's about morality involved in religion. I've made my point. Whether or not you agree is not my business.

Please, allow me to quote the OP.

"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."

This has everything to do with the effects of theistic morality on society. So I am bringing that into the equation. I contend that theistic morality is a farce, rooted in subservience and obedience to authority which gives credence to atrocity. I contend that all supposed 'principles' and 'lawful' creeds that many theists espouse are in contradiction to the blatant arbitrary nature of morality by God, or from God.

Your opinion on that, may I ask?

And seeing as the argument is about the morality of religion and has nothing to do with apologetics, I don't care whether or not it 'works' for you. I don't aim to convince you or anyone.

You've been spending a lot of time defending the actions of God. I would consider that apologetics.

 

[Mling]

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

Well....because you *don't,* need to be a Christian to value some type of morality found in the Bible. There are atheists who follow the moral teachings of Jesus, and Muslims cultures that punish rape victims--both totally in accordance with systems of morality found in the Bible.

 

[Wedjat]

Godschild, your entire argument hinges on whether or not God exists. If he does then maybe - maybe what is described in numbers is justifiable, if not it is absolutely heinous.

 

[InkBlott]

Godschild, your entire argument hinges on whether or not God exists. If he does then maybe - maybe what is described in numbers is justifiable, if not it is absolutely heinous.

Hi, Wedjat. I wouldn't give him that. He is justifying the murder of children lest they become vectors of evil, as if killing children weren't itself the absolute rule and measure of evil.

Theism not only is not necessary for morality, it ultimately twists the meaning of morality so that evil can be justified.

 

[Skavau]

Theism not only is not necessary for morality, it ultimately twists the meaning of morality so that evil can be justified.

Absolutely. Theism exists in spite of morality. It is the manipulator and abuser of people's altruism and empathy. It distorts the concept of compassion to that only of the deity, the great arbiter. It manipulates the concept of altruism to mean self-serving, and self-interest and stretches the meaning of life to focus primarily on the afterlife.

'Theistic morality' is one's willingness to submit to authority. The contention by theists is that absolute morality exists based on the position that God decrees it, it or some nebulous answer such as 'God is it' or such like. We only know from theists how they know (or believe) that morality is absolute - we don't know, and neither to they why. The statement that God is the arbiter and lawgiver of morality is only a knowledge claim, not an ought claim (the lack of differentiation between is and ought is also a byproduct of this).

To add, the actual consequence of the mentality of God being the arbiter of "absolute" or "objective" morality is and digs much deeper if really believed. Actions are not wrong based upon their consequences, or even principle worth but purely based on the assertion of God. Things are not wrong because of their implications, but purely disagreeable for the issue the arbiter has with it. 'Justice' loses all meaning. 'right' becomes obedient, and 'wrong' becomes disobedience. Murder is not wrong because of the suffering it causes and the life lost from it, but it is reprehensible because God does not approve. There is such a problem with perhaps believing the right things for the wrong reasons and this is a prime example of this. How do we know, say, that people who claim these things won't get a 'revelation' from God that rape, mutilation or general infliction on pain to others is acceptable? We know that many mass-murderers have themselves claimed this. This is the evil that theistic morality is open to, and has been partial to in the past.

I could go on....

 

[b&wpac4]

Absolutely. Theism exists in spite of morality. It is the manipulator and abuser of people's altruism and empathy. It distorts the concept of compassion to that only of the deity, the great arbiter. It manipulates the concept of altruism to mean self-serving, and self-interest and stretches the meaning of life to focus primarily on the afterlife.

I don't do good because I'm focused on the afterlife.

 

[RocketRed]

I don't do good because I'm focused on the afterlife.

Indeed. I think that religion does serve the purpose of dispensing and re-enforcing morality and I don't think it can be said that all faithful are moral only for rewards in the afterlife.

 

[InkBlott]

Indeed. I think that religion does serve the purpose of dispensing and re-enforcing morality and I don't think it can be said that all faithful are moral only for rewards in the afterlife.

Of course not. Christianity attracts some good people. They keep it from descending to the level that it is capable of reaching. It is not Christianity that makes people good. It is people who make Christianity (relatively) good. These same people would be doing good whether Christian, of another religion, or purely secular. However, remove them from the mix and any church you can name would become a dark and frightening place without altering a single syllable of their creed.

 

[b&wpac4]

Of course not. Christianity attracts some good people. They keep it from descending to the level that it is capable of reaching. It is not Christianity that makes people good. It is people who make Christianity (relatively) good. These same people would be doing good whether Christian, of another religion, or purely secular. However, remove them from the mix and any church you can name would become a dark and frightening place without altering a single syllable of their creed.

My beliefs help provide a framework for how to handle situations that arise. This framework provides moral teachings that would not occur naturally for me. I am withdrawn and distant normally, and would more than likely not give a second thought to giving to charity or helping a homeless man were it not for that framework. If you deem that to be a bad thing, then I do not understand where you are coming from.

 

[InkBlott]

My beliefs help provide a framework for how to handle situations that arise. This framework provides moral teachings that would not occur naturally for me. I am withdrawn and distant normally, and would more than likely not give a second thought to giving to charity or helping a homeless man were it not for that framework. If you deem that to be a bad thing, then I do not understand where you are coming from.

Having a framework isn't a bad thing. I simply think that Christianity offers a deeply flawed framework. I am apt to attribute it's working well in your case more to your own character than to anything else. Don't forget that it is the very same framework that allows God'sChild to excuse killing children lest they become vectors for evil, and that it allows this without a single shiver to its structure. That you (presumably) would find no way whatsoever to justify this action speaks to your quality as a human being, not to the quality of the framework itself. Remove people like yourself and Christianity would merrily support a killing spree.

 

[b&wpac4]

Having a framework isn't a bad thing. I simply think that Christianity offers a deeply flawed framework. I am apt to attribute it's working well in your case more to your own character than to anything else. Don't forget that it is the very same framework that allows God'sChild to excuse killing children lest they become vectors for evil, and that it allows this without a single shiver to its structure. That you (presumably) would find no way whatsoever to justify this action speaks to your quality as a human being, not to the quality of the framework itself. Remove people like yourself and Christianity would merrily support a killing spree.

Not a Christian

 

[Seaside Beauty]

Having a framework isn't a bad thing. I simply think that Christianity offers a deeply flawed framework. I am apt to attribute it's working well in your case more to your own character than to anything else. Don't forget that it is the very same framework that allows God'sChild to excuse killing children lest they become vectors for evil, and that it allows this without a single shiver to its structure. That you (presumably) would find no way whatsoever to justify this action speaks to your quality as a human being, not to the quality of the framework itself. Remove people like yourself and Christianity would merrily support a killing spree.

I think the thing to remember about any religion or belief is that it only offers what you see or take from it. I am not going to say that some people are inherently bad, but there are people who are more prone to selfishness and that selfishness causes them to take only bad things from the faith... But I suspect you'll find these people take only the bad from not just religion but from other aspects of life as well. People are flawed and people do have shortcomings and even the best of us are prone to see the wrong thing or are prone to using any excuse, be it religion or another medium, to justify self-gratification. I don't think in those cases it's the religion to blame, but people and their flaws.

Is my faith as an individual perfect? I'd be lying if I said yes. Is my faith as a whole perfect? Again, I'd be lying if I say yes. Is my faith as represented as a whole perfect? Again, the answer is the same. In the end, my faith as a person and my ability to follow it is held back by my flaws. And my faith as a whole is held back by the fact that after 2,000 years of interpretation and seeking and following by other flawed humans, it too is held back by mistakes made by people... People now and people who existed long before I ever did. And everybody who claims the faith has varying flaws that prevent them from being perfect in their beliefs. Don't think as a Christian there aren't people that I look at who also claim my faith that make me shake my head.

Now as a Christian, I'm supposed to try and accept all of these people and accept their flaws and not excuse them, but remember that this is why we have a need for God in our lives. I understand this isn't the same for everybody... I don't expect that it would or should be. The best I or anybody can do is our best and hope that people will not judge the whole of the God we try to follow through our faith and our faith as a whole, if they believe or not, as somehow flawed or broken or even (God forbid) as evil because of our mistakes.

 

[InkBlott]

Not a Christian

Whoops. I need to pay more attention to icons.

Sorry about that.

 

[b&wpac4]

Whoops. I need to pay more attention to icons.

Sorry about that.

No worries. If you'd like to PM me your thoughts on how this would apply to Judaism, I'd be very interested.

 

[Skavau]

I don't do good because I'm focused on the afterlife.

I never said you did. My point didn't even declare that. My point was talking about the problems of 'theistic morality', or 'morality from god'.

Indeed. I think that religion does serve the purpose of dispensing and re-enforcing morality and I don't think it can be said that all faithful are moral only for rewards in the afterlife.

No-one is saying that. I and others are specifically saying that if someone really believes in theistic morality - then they are susceptible to great evil on behalf of it, and they have no principle on this to declare the evil they are susceptible to as evil. Theistic morality, literally cannot mean anything other than morality from God. Morality per God's terms. This literally means that good and evil become obedience and disobedience respectively. Something is not good, or wrong because of its consequences, but it depends on whether God says it so. This kind of divine reasoning has been the torch of destruction historically, and still many hold that torch proudly.

If anyone really believes that things like murder, rape, torture and things generally reprehensible are wrong just because God says so (as is what many declare as absolute morality) - then they are not by principle absolutely against those things, but only against what God hates and only for what God wants. If God, by theistic morality standards was to declare murder acceptable (this is key) no-one who believes in 'theistic morality' would have any grounds to argue. If any other criteria is stated, any exemption clauses applied to this then it ceases to be 'theistic morality'.

 

[corvus_corax]

Absolutely. Theism exists in spite of morality.

(Emphasis yours)

Bovine Feces

​

 

[Skavau]

(Emphasis yours)

Bovine Feces

​

Huh?

 

[corvus_corax]

Huh?

Broadbrushing with your statement that I quoted and replied to.
That's what you were doing


Again, broadbrushing is (male) bovine feces

Does that clear it up?
If not, we can chat