To the Christians here...

[rocketdodger]

Not pointless. We have different perceptions and different beliefs, and therefore reading you express what it is you perceive and what it is you believe is valuable to me. I know what I see; I am curious to know what others see, and to try to learn why some see things so differently from me. That helps me see better, for which I am grateful.

I didn't mean in general, I meant with regards to whether rational thinking will always lead to morality. If morality is subjective, then it certainly will. If morality is objective, then I grant that it might not always do so and in fact very often does not.

I am happy to discuss morality with you. I just mean to say that because of the objective/subjective divide, some topics within morality result in an impasse. For one, you seem to suggest that the agreement between many people regarding what is moral or immoral helps define morality. On the other hand, subjective morality by definition implies that there doesn't need to be agreement, so we can't go any further down this path. I will, however, agree that some kind of similar morality between groups of people is necessary for them to enjoy their interactions with each other.

 

[trvlr2]

*snip*
Also partially so I can better understand the faithful and their beliefs. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint as well as a philosphical one.

Yes, indeedly-doodley!

That would depend on the intent of the message. I find I can learn a lot about a person by how they interpret the Bible as a believer. What ideas they latch on to and what ideas they read differently. It could also be argued that mankind has done a poor job of translating it, then retranslating it, then reretranslating it until it is a jumbled mess. All depends on how you look at it. Some people think it is perfectly clear and in need of no interpretation at all... those people scare me.

They scare me, too. Especially since those scriptures are held to be divinely inspired and translated.

Some say he is God incarnate, some say he is a seperate intelligence from God but very closely connected, possibly that Jesus is a part of the soul of God, some say that he would have been born normal if not for being infused with the will of god as a fetus and that by virgin they meant honest (some obscure double meaning of the word in the original language).

So, there is not a consensus. A religious sect based on fragmentary scriptures, with multiple meanings possible. No wonder there is so much cherry-picking going on!

If you look at what is generally considered to qualify as sins, then it is hard to imagine a human being who has never and will never sin short of a stillborn child. As I said before, hell can be interpreted as simply a detachment from god and the punishment could be as simple as existing seperate from the creator, which many would not consider a punishment at all.

And yet, some of those sects also have the stillborn as sinning. And the fragments of scripture attributed to christ in Mark,?, clearly state burning in hell, as part of not accepting the christ.
How ever would we know when to get out our rationalizer/interpreter?
Whenever we don't like something?

 

[trvlr2]

Ow! my bad! Please read my comments inserted between Inf's post. Should have previewed.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I didn't mean in general, I meant with regards to whether rational thinking will always lead to morality. If morality is subjective, then it certainly will.

Er ... please explain.

 

[rocketdodger]

Er ... please explain.

Um... because if morality is subjective, then everyone is free to define their own. Then, adhering to reason will result in them acting in accordance with their own morality. The only way they could act immorally is if they didn't act rationally at some point. Sort of along the lines of Kant's categorical imperative thing.

A better answer, actually, is that if morality is subjective, then a person will arrive at some kind of personal morality via rational thought, so whenever they act rationally, they are actually defining their morality on the fly.

 

[ceo_esq]

And yet, some of those sects also have the stillborn as sinning.

Which ones are those?

 

[Tricky]

Um... because if morality is subjective, then everyone is free to define their own. Then, adhering to reason will result in them acting in accordance with their own morality. The only way they could act immorally is if they didn't act rationally at some point. Sort of along the lines of Kant's categorical imperative thing.

A better answer, actually, is that if morality is subjective, then a person will arrive at some kind of personal morality via rational thought, so whenever they act rationally, they are actually defining their morality on the fly.

Personal morality is completely subjective and everybody defines theirs on the fly. But societies have a group morality which is somewhat more objective, in that more people participate in deciding what it is. So of you decide to live in a society, you tacitly make a deal with them that you will abide by the "group morality". Any failure to do so may result in you being punished by that group for violating your agreement.

And you are free to disagree with the group morality. You can even labor to have that morality changed, like the anti-slavery people did. Personally, I work fairly hard to have my ideas of morality encoded into the laws, with mixed results.

 

[Huntster]

.....Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe.............

Those parts that fit my reasoning.

Actually, that applies to almost all of it..................

and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?

Very little, as you would interpret them.

I'm a very, very wicked man..........................

However, I "adhere" to Roman Catholicism as I have interpreted it.

That means that I have every right to "shoot back" (and maybe even to "shoot first"), I have a duty to perform as the state requires (as long as RCC doctrine isn't violated), I have a right to hunt and fish, I have a right to destroy those who intend to harm me, my loved ones, or innocent others who are being victimized, and I have no duty to cooperate with corrupt officials.

You?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by trvlr2 :
Exactly. So, Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe,and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?

Oh for the love of.... be fair now.

Anyone who has read a well annotated version of the bible should be well aware of exactly how vague a lot of the passages really are. There are probably as many interpretations as there are Christians to interpret it. To say that one man is less of a Christian because he does not believe exactly the same as Jerry Falwel is just insulting to the individual and to Christianity as a whole.

Thank you.

 

[Huntster]

Actually, as an american I have gotten used to the American bashing. Largely because it was not my choice to be an American so therefore I do not identify myself as such.

Insulting someone's religion is a lot more personal than insulting their nationality since it is a choice, a decision to believe in that faith.

Again, thank you.

 

[Huntster]

.......I have seen convincing arguments for the belief that hell exists as a physical location and Satan is lord of that domain as well as arguments for the idea that hell is simply a detachment from the love of God and there is no such thing as Satan. Even a very good interpretation that indicated that Hell is a combination of a spiritual place in every man's heart and that Satan roams the earth by causing people to listen to that part of their hearts.

About the only thing I can think of that I have never seen Christians disagree on is that Christ is in some way divine and that he died to in some way prevent us from being punished for our inevitable sins.

A third time; thank you.

 

[Huntster]

....Why study the bible if you're not a christian?...

Perhaps for the same reason a Christian might study Taoism.

For enlightenment.

....You have already indicated that it is rather murky reading If it were the true 'word of god' it would be clear, no? And not need "interpreting"....

Everything is open for "interpreting".

...Does your statement about christ being in some way divine imply that xtians DISAGREE on exactly how he is/was supposed to be divine?...

Apparently, you have a poor understanding of Christianity.

There is disagreement on exactly how He was supposed to be divine.

...How do you get that sin is inevitable...

Quite apparently, if you have no education or learning in spirituality, you wouldn't understand how sin is inevitable.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by trvlr2 :
Why study the bible if you're not a christian?

Why study Greek mythology if you don't believe in Zeus?

To understand.

 

[Huntster]

Yes, I very much agree.

That's why some theists hold what I think is a mistaken notion that people can behave morally only if they believe in god -- and why some atheists hold what I think is an equally mistaken notion that morality is simply a social construct.

Well written. I agree.

It would be a very scary world if people tried live morally simply because they feared god's punishment, or if they lived morally simply because society expected it of them. Fortunately that is not the case.

Actually, for the most of the world, I believe that is very much the case.

...Both theists and atheists seem to me to be capable of knowing what is moral, and of trying to live accordingly -- despite sometimes holding silly notions about why people do.

I still agree.

Instead of coming up with fanciful theories about why other people do (or don't) live up to certain standards, I think a good starting point is asking ourselves, why do I live as I do?

For those who live moral lives, I think that is the ultimate question.

For myself, I believe the reason I behave as I do is that in my heart I am able to tell that some choices of action are wrong to do in a given situation, and others are right. This is not absolutely wrong or absolutely right, any more than things I see are absolutely green or absolutely red. But it is a distinct, and real, perception.

I do not believe this is simply arbitrary choice or the result of social conditioning. My belief is that this is as real a sense as the sense of sight, or touch, or taste. I also believe that others have this same sense -- whether they believe in god or not, whether they believe that right and wrong are real or simply social constructs, whether they believe people are able to sense what is right and wrong or think people just follow an arbitraary set of laws they have created.

Like "original sin" there is "original righteousness". We all "know" what is right and what is wrong.

The problem is in between.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by infornography :
Perhaps I missed something but I never thought of religion as an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality. Its more of a dogmatic system for stating a believed metaphysical reality. It doesn't really have anything in place for organizing or considering possibilities.

Yes, I believe you have missed something. Religion can be a dogmatic system for stating a believed metaphysical reality, but it doesn't have to be. Same applies to science.

THANK YOU.

Science is both a method for determining what is true in the physical world and a body of knowledge built by using that method. Both are important, but if one thinks of science only as the body of knowledge then belief in science can be (and often has been) as dogmatic as belief in religion is currently perceived by many.

THANK YOU.

If I had been living a thousand or more years back, I would probably have as negative a view of science (as it existed then) as many atheists have of religion today. What we think of as the scientific method -- which, to me, is the essence of science -- is a fairly recent historical development, really only a few centuries old.

YES!

Even today there are people who teach science as dogma rather than as a method of inquiry. I had several such people as teachers when I was growing up. (I attended school in an area with a low standard for teachers. One substitute elementary school teacher tried to convince me that 1/2 multipled by 1/2 could not be possibly be 1/4 as I maintained, because 1/4 was smaller than 1/2 and multiplication made things get bigger!) I was fortunate to have had a love of and respect for science instilled in me at home before encountering such teachers. Sadly, with regard to religion, many people are only exposed to those who teach it as dogma.

I'm loving this.......

Religion, like science, is both a method for determining what is true in the metaphysical world and a body of knowledge (or set of beliefs) built by using that method. Unfortunately, just as early methods of scientific inquiry were badly flawed (before what we now know as the scientific method finally evolved) so many methods of religious inquiry have been badly flawed. One method of inquiry is consulting a holy book. Another is consulting a holy authority. Neither of these is a very good method for determining what is and isn't true. But the existence of flawed methods of inquiry -- in science or in religion -- does not discredit the entire enterprise. It simply means we must find better methods of inquiry.

This couldn't get better.......

The challenge -- in religion as well as science -- is to find methods of inquiry which help us distinguish correctly between what is true and what is false. The test of how good our methods of inquiry are is how reliable the set of knowledge generated using those methods is.

Here's where I digress.

The challenge is to find methods to inquire.

Science has improved a lot over the centuries. Religion still has a lot of room for improvement.

Again, I disagree.

Both religion and science have a long, long, long way to go..........

...But it is as much a mistake to dismiss the idea of religion today because, historically, it has gotten so much wrong, as it would have been to dismiss the idea of science a thousand years ago on similar grounds.

Thank you.

I'm fairly satisfied with my religion as a good method of inquiry. Basically I believe that the same methods which underlie science -- or skepticism -- are good methods to apply to religious inquiry.

Again, thanks.

I'd prefer not to derail this thread into too many long dissertations on what I believe. (I wind up doing that more than I like already, in order to answer questions such as the ones you raise.)

As an old railroader, this kind of derailment is the right kind of "direction", despite the direction of the tracks.

But I'd be glad to take up this general question of religion as a system of inquiry rather than as a body of dogma in another thread some time, if you like. (Please note that I write very slowly, and am way behind on finishing some posts for other threads I'm interested in but have not gotten back to, and please have patience with me for not wanting to get too wrapped up in such a discussion right now.)

Quality beats quantity every day.

Give us as much as you can.

Your posts are like gold.

 

[Huntster]

I do not believe that love, respect, compassion, cooperation, honesty and justice are simply created concepts. I believe that these are real phenomena -- as real as gravity. As such, I believe they are worth studying and understanding (and aspiring to).

I agree 100%.

Dogma said that the ownership of one person by another is justified; inquiry led to belief it is not. Today there is general consensus, regardless of religious belief (or lack of it) which says ownership of one person by another is not right. That indicates to me this is not simply an arbitrary construct but an actual truth.

Again, I agree 100%, however that doesn’t mesh with the current legal situation of abortion.

Dogma said that women were not moral equals of men; inquiry led to belief that they are. Today there is general consensus that women and men are moral equals. This indicates to me this is not simply an arbitrary construct but an actual truth.

I agree 100%.

Today dogma says that homosexuality is sinful; inquiry is leading to belief that love and fidelity are good things regardless of sexual orientation.

Again, I agree 100%.

However, I would like to point out that homosexuality is 100% a sexual phenomenon.

One does not need to be homosexual to “love” one of the same gender, nor does one need to be homosexual to be true to one of the same gender.

In fact, by leaving “sexual relations” out of the “relations”, there is much to be gained.

I believe that within 100 years, hopefully much less, there will be general consensus on this, and people will look back on arguments over gay marriage much as we now look back on arguments over slavery

I’m hoping not.

I’m hoping people can leave “sex” and “sexual relations” behind. Ties to the flesh are too strong. It’s time to leave that behind and focus on the spirit.

 

[Huntster]

...why should we, creatures with finite life spans here on earth, wait for this convergence of religion and science?

Because we have no choice?

All of the things you used as examples took literally centuries to occur. Viewed from our current perspective, this is quite pathetic. How could women have been treated so badly? How could anyone think slavery is ethical? Why was there such a long fight to change people's minds?

Slavery still occurs, despite your "enlightenment". So does the abuse of women, in this society as well as those many choose to condemn for such.

It is good that you think religion will change for the better as time goes on. I would agree, actually, that this is happening. My problem is that it isn't nearly fast enough. On the other hand, one can come to all of these moral conclusions IMMEDIATELY if they simply use rational thought.

Are you seeking Heaven on Earth today?

Think it will occur while you live physically today?

Think your demands for such will bear the ultimate fruit?

Good Luck.

 

[Huntster]

.......Even if, as you contend, there is an objective morality, having people reach it on their own is much better than forcing it down their throats.

Even if you reject religion, the government will force it's interpretation of morality "down your throat".

What are you fighting?

 

[Huntster]

And yet, some of those sects also have the stillborn as sinning....

Original sin alone.

And the fragments of scripture attributed to christ in Mark,?, clearly state burning in hell, as part of not accepting the christ.

Considering that the Christ was "salvation", if you don't accept "salvation", you are clearly not going to get the "salvation".

You are not to be "saved" (the meaning of "salvation").

What's so difficult to understand?

Or is it more rejection than a lack of salvation?

How ever would we know when to get out our rationalizer/interpreter?
Whenever we don't like something?

Whenever you dont' understand something.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I doubt that's a strong correlation. I suspect other factors are much more strongly related to bigotry as a trait.

I don't.