Originally posted by dj2beckerI think you're confusing universal with internation or global. I think also that you consider the western hemisphere to be the norm in morals, which is pertinent only to a discussion of such a moral climate, certainly not to an absolute one as you would suggest.
Have you ever thought why murder is universally considered as wrong?
Or are you trying to say that there are no universal morals?
I do not think that there are universal morals, that concept is ridiculous. I do think that there are socially agreed moral standards which exist across every culture, such as that murder is wrong.
I personally thnik that religion has no place teaching morality, especially not to young children. How is teaching a child that if you're not good you're going to hell a moral way of teaching morality? Why not just put a gun to the kids head and then tell them that if they're not good i'm going to blow your head off? I'm almost certain that far more kids would learn to be good a hell of a lot quicker, but at what cost to their mental health? To me morality taught by religion is a metaphorical shotgun pointed at a religious persons head.
Originally posted by MonsieurGeeI think you are combining two things -- teaching morality, and teaching that not following certain rules will send one to hell. Those are not the same. I think it is the role of religion to teach its morality to members of that faith, including the children. So I'm curious what you thiink a religion's role is. What should a religion teach?
I personally thnik that religion has no place teaching morality, especially not to young children. How is teaching a child that if you're not good you're going to hell a moral way of teaching morality? Why not just put a gun to the kids head and then tell them that if they're not good i'm going to blow your head off? I'm almost certain that far more kids ...[text shortened]... morality taught by religion is a metaphorical shotgun pointed at a religious persons head.
I do agree that laying the "going to hell" theory on thick with children is harmful and with adults is wasted. In fact, I stopped going to Southern Baptist Churches (during a brief period in my 20s) because of that. At no point have the fear of hell and ideal of heaven been a part of my decision-making process.
I guess what I'm getting at is that religion doesn't have a leg to stand on in a way. The only way religion can make someone be good is through the threat of hell, or that's how it seems to me. If this threat is made irrelevant, then religion has no more power in it teachings then those of Ganhdi.
Once religion loses this power, it teachings are no longer really effective and people are good not because of the bible but because they choose to do so because they believe it is the right thing to do, not because they feel threatened into doing so. Since the positive effects that religion is perceived to have can be derived from other non religious moral teachings, all that is left over are the negative effects. These negative effects are becoming plain to see through the war in Iraq, the trouble in Israel and Palestine and in the war that right wing christian fundamentalists are fighting in the name of god against science.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat wasn't hard now was it?
My moral standard is based upon the moral code given by God. Have you ever heard of the Ten Commandments, for example?
Your moral standard is BASED on the moral code given by God. Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are part of your code?
And just so that there is no mistake, they are (variously, depending on R)
1) I am your God
You shall have no other gods before Me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
2) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
3) Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
4) Honor your parents
5) You shall not murder
6) You shall not commit adultery
7) You shall not steal
8) You shall not bear false witness
9) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife,
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's house etc
Am I correct?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanSo you basically you are saying that there is no absolute right or wrong, and thus no absolute truth?
I think you're confusing universal with internation or global. I think also that you consider the western hemisphere to be the norm in morals, which is pertinent only to a discussion of such a moral climate, certainly not to an absolute one as you would suggest.
I do not think that there are universal morals, that concept is ridiculous. I do think that ...[text shortened]... socially agreed moral standards which exist across every culture, such as that murder is wrong.
You mean to say that you would kill someone in cold blood without thinking that you have done something wrong?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI believe that since God is the only unchanging absolute, His moral law is also absolute.
That wasn't hard now was it?
Your moral standard is BASED on the moral code given by God. Are you saying that the Ten Commandments are part of your code?
And just so that there is no mistake, they are (variously, depending on R)
1) I am your God
You shall have no other gods before Me
You shall not make for yourself an idol
2) You sha ...[text shortened]... et your neighbor's wife,
10) You shall not covet your neighbor's house etc
Am I correct?
And I also believe that every single human being is guilty of breaking God' moral law.
Originally posted by dj2beckerLol, talk about misdirection!
[b]I wasn't aware the universe had morals.
So you think that the universe is void of any morals?[/b]
Universal implies something which applies to or spans the universe; is found everywhere. So no, morals are not universal, they do not apply to the universe, neither are they found everywhere in it. The apply to people.
There are morals within the universe, but morals are not universal, surely you can see that?
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes, there is no absolute right or wrong.
So you basically you are saying that there is no absolute right or wrong, and thus no absolute truth?
You mean to say that you would kill someone in cold blood without thinking that you have done something wrong?
No, your next paragraph in no ways follows from your first. When will you get off this ridiculous belief that morals require an absolute origin and that without that people are instantly serial killers? You sound like someone who is just accepting the faulty instruction of their religious teacher and doing so because he is by definition right. You're making yourself look silly, try thinking for yourself for a change.