A real life dilemma - tonight!

Originally posted by FMF
Muslims beliefs about pork are "superstition", of course, and "vanity" too if they claim that not eating eat will help them get eternal life.

I don't think they make that claim. They don't eat pork because they were told not to by God.

Originally posted by FMF
You should direct questions about "Jesus", and about "God's instructions" generally, to Christians. Jesus is unrelated to my perception of what is moral and immoral.

Your question dodging is getting noticeable. Why cant you criticize Jesus?

It is not unrelated, I asked you a direct question about whether or not his action of refusing to renounce his beliefs in the fact of crucifixion is in your perception moral or immoral.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure what your answer is here. Yes, or no?

"Lying" about your beliefs, to someone who is threatening to harm you or kill you for having those beliefs, is not immoral. Do you think it is?

Originally posted by FMF
Where religion involves doing harm or extinguishing empathy, then it deviates from morality as I see it. So yes, religion is often 'superseded'. Of course.

Well then you differ from most religious people. I just think you should recognise this and not assume that it is only JWs that think religion superceeds instinctual morality.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your question dodging is getting noticeable. Why cant you criticize Jesus?

Because Jesus is no longer alive and is no longer able to treat me in an immoral way, nor answer for what he does and advocates. I will assess the morality and immorality of his followers.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you differ from most religious people.

Well of course I "differ from most religious people". I am not religious.

Originally posted by FMF
"Lying" about your beliefs, to someone who is threatening to harm you or kill you for having those beliefs, is not immoral. Do you think it is?

I hold no religious beliefs, but the Bible quite clearly says blasphemy is unforgivable. Whether blasphemy is blasphemy when you lie, or say something under coercion is debatable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I asked you a direct question about whether or not his action of refusing to renounce his beliefs in the fact of crucifixion is in your perception moral or immoral.

I don't think there is any moral dimension to his decision. Some might see his act as inspirational or significant. Some might not attach any actual 'meaning' to it at all. I attach no meaning to the crucifixion. The people who crucified him were, as far as I am aware, acting immorally.

Originally posted by FMF
In what way does a Muslim not eating pork cause harm to another person?

[b]Would you criticize a Christian who refused to renounce his religion at the cost of his life or someone else's??

I think any religionist choosing not to tell someone who is threatening to kill him or her that they have 'renounced' their beliefs because that is what they want to ...[text shortened]... to rooting it in alleged supernatural 'instructions' that are obtuse and illogical.[/b]

(TW) Why do you put instinctual morality above religion and it is reasonable to do so?

(FMF)I think religion and morality overlap in places, that's all. I cannot see any moral virtue in refusing to donate blood due to superstition and vanity, and thus allowing a person to die, whereas I can see moral virtue in saving someone's life. For me it comes down to the logic of rooting morality in terms of empathy and doing no harm, as opposed to rooting it in alleged supernatural 'instructions' that are obtuse and illogical.

I believe groups of like-minded people enshrine their more important moral rules in their religion. Giving the rules the blessing or even authorship of a god, putting them above question by the hoi polloi and serving as a conservative force -- for good or for bad to the group or its inheritors. Some moral or quasi-moral rules, like manners, are left to families and civil society to preserve and enforce, and others are given to governments to preserve and enforce (or taken by them).

This was more important in a tribal, nondemocratic setting, than it is in secularized societies today.

The importance of the use of blood in saving lives via transfusions and other means, has increased faster than the mechanisms of religious change can readily accommodate. If the mechanisms of change were speedier, religion would not serve as well as it has, as a conservator of moral codes. But this feature of religion may also be a bug.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I hold no religious beliefs, but the Bible quite clearly says blasphemy is unforgivable.

So?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think [Muslims] make that claim. They don't eat pork because they were told not to by God.

So in what way are you linking this not-eating-pork thing to causing someone's death because of superstition? There is no moral dimension to not-eating-pork and eating-pork.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I just think you should recognise this and not assume that it is only JWs that think religion superceeds instinctual morality.

Where have I ever claimed "that it is only JWs that think religion superceeds instinctual morality"? I oppose pretty much all religionists' attempts to superimpose their groupthink and creed onto others whilst, in the course of doing so, claiming it is religion-therefore-morality. Where is it you think I said that "it is only JWs" who do this?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well obviously you do not consider it a religious requirement to be honest about your beliefs, and you believe that God will forgive such action. You do realise however that not all theists believe that God is like that and with good reason:
“…but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” - Mar ...[text shortened]... would not have stepped in to help had you been unable to give your wife a blood transfusion.

Well obviously you do not consider it a religious requirement to be honest about your beliefs, and you believe that God will forgive such action. You do realise however that not all theists believe that God is like that and with good reason:
“…but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” - Mark 3:29 (NIV)
I'll do whatever it takes to save the life of a loved one. Do you consider your personal honesty more important than saving the life of your loved one? Why should I be any different? As for your scripture - it is also written that God knows the hearts of men. Honesty comesfrom the heart not just the lips. Yes I'd lie to save a life - big deal, who wouldn't.

Your examples are hardly comparable.
Comparable with what, giving blood? If you feel compelled to think of a more comparable examplethat would satisfy whatever point you want to make, please feel free to do so and let me have it.

Why? I thought you were Christian? Why is life so precious to you?
Firstly, I was talking about my conscience not my life. Secondly why should Christians not be concerned about the preciousness of life? Is this your view? Are you projecting?

And I say it has more to do with your hatred of JWs than actual logic.
A strong statement and strikingly atypical of your usual objectivity. What makes you think I hate JWs? I don't hate anyone. I speak out against the JW "organisation" almost exclusively in my posts, not the people. I certainly do not hate the JWs here.

Yet you have no problem with a God who orders genocides and kills the first born of every Egyptian. Not to mention the fact that your God, despite being supposedly omnipotent, would not have stepped in to help had you been unable to give your wife a blood transfusion.
But I do have a problem with this - you are also being unusually presumptive today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...unless you can explain why a theist - who believes in a life after death - should hold preserving life to be the ultimate moral good, you have no leg to stand on in this discussion.

Well, you have to decide what morality is rooted in - and then respond to what you see as moral and immoral behaviour accordingly.

If the harm Dasa wanted to do to all Muslim men is justified by his personal certainty that they will be reincarnated, then the harm that JWs want to do to people who need a blood transfusion will be perhaps be justified by their personal certainty about supernatural things. Personally I don't think either is. What do you think?

You need to respond to these instances of "harm" and "lack of empathy" as you see fit. Suggesting that my moral perspective has "no leg to stand on" does not amount to a coherent response from you towards the "harm" and "lack of empathy" that these religionists have advocated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether blasphemy is blasphemy when you lie, or say something under coercion is debatable.

Quite posibly it is debatable; but that debate is between the alleged god who is blashphemed and the follower who commited the alleged blasphemy. It also depends on the definition of blasphemy.