I find it quite ironic that many Ethical Relativists and Atheists seem to consider many things Christians say and do to be “wrong.” (I don’t mean factually inaccurate. I mean morally wrong.) Better yet, they often push their beliefs that we are morally wrong on us. If you don’t think they do (although I doubt anyone would think that), go to www.atheistsforhumanrights.org First of all, if morality is relative, (ie: I can only decide homosexuality is wrong for me. You can decide it’s morally right for you because there’s really no absolute standard of morality anyway.) why is it wrong for me to chose the Biblical standard of morals? Now before everybody tells me that they are, in fact, ok with that as long as I don’t spread my beliefs or impose them on others, don’t forget that the Great Commission is part of the Christian moral code. Converting others to Islam is also part of the Islamic moral code, and I think that’s just fine. Muslims are perfectly aloud to attempt to spread their beliefs, as they should be. Considering the fact that both Christians and Muslims are supposed to convert others to their faiths and even make their societies more compatible with their beliefs, if Ethical Relativists tell me it’s fine for me to obey the Christian moral code, I am now commanded, by that code, to spread these beliefs and attempt to make the society in which I live more compatible with them. Considering this, there seems to be a new moral code which, ironically enough, is generally advocated by Ethical Relativists. By what I can tell, its tenets seem to be as follows:
*Treating animals as anything short of human is morally wrong.
*Being politically incorrect or intolerant is bigoted and morally wrong.
*Making any attempt to halt abortion, gay marriage, and physician aid in dying is morally wrong. (Once again, see www.atheistsforhumanrights.org)
*Making too much money (ie: CEOs) is morally wrong unless you plead for higher taxes.
*Racial prejudice is morally wrong. (I agree with this one, but it doesn’t contradict my beliefs. The fact that it is part of a moral code contradicts theirs.)
*Spreading Christian morality or imposing it on others is morally wrong. (Imposing the first five points of this new code, however, is morally right.)
I may decide to refute why this is not the correct moral code later. That wasn’t the point of this blog. I simply wanted to point out the irony of the fact that many Ethical Relativists have their own moral code—which they make every attempt to push on others.
The New Moral Code
By Katie Marie - Posted on March 27th, 2008
Hahaha true.
"STOP PUSHING YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT GOD AND MORALS ONTO ME. THERE IS NO GOD AND YOUR MORALS ARE WRONG" propaganda just makes me laugh because it accomplishes exactly what it preaches against. With the exception that it has the MAGIC MORAL AUTHORITY as it does not involve religion, thus is somehow more valid or acceptable.
"why is it wrong for me to chose the Biblical standard of morals?"
You may call me a spiritual relativist, but i dig some of the paramount beliefs of Christianity. Stay on yer own moral compass, sister. A democratic society permits you to do so, unless, like you pointed out, you force yer beliefs on others. Groove on with your spiritual self.
ps. i dig some of the actions evangelicals are taking to embolden nature. Check 'em out @ Family Values and the Ecosystem interlaced... Too idealistic?
haha, dig.. .sorry, haven't heard that in a while. And groove on, another funny one, sorry. So, are you a spiritual relavist or are you just on the positive side of the moral relativism compass? To me, there's a big difference.
What's the major difference in yer mind??
To me my moral compass is pretty set. i do my best to consciously tell the truth, i don't steal, i don't wish harm upon anyone, and I'm motivated to become more knowledgeable about the conditions of the Earth. Spiritually, i'm not so firm. The only thing that i have worked out is that mother nature is the only form of divinity i can latch onto. Hopefully that won't change, ya know.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Ok, in my mind you're just a moral relativist who goes toward the more moral side. To me, a spiritual relavist would be a cosmic humanist or someone along those belief lines. You'd basically believe that any spiritual aspect is relative to your interpretation, if you think you are a god, then go ahead, believe it, if you want to worship a tree as a god, go ahead. I'm sure there's a much better definition of spiritual relativism, but that's just what came out from me. Well, "mother nature" as you said isn't a true form of divinity, I can't see how it could be really. Maybe you could enlighten me on that one cuz when I look at nature, I don't see a "mother nature," I see something that was created (begin bashing.... now).
Thank you for the humorous "(begin bashing)" bit. I can't bash you on your perception.. perhaps that's a moral decision of mine, i don't know.
i look at land a little differently than my contemporaries and my European ancestry. We cannot have dominion over nature. We cannot own land. i think of land as feminine, a mother that doesn't necessarily protect our exterior, but which nurtures our souls. Can we own our mother? This is a different discussion, but it leads into my paganistic belief system.
Divine, meaning has qualities or manifestations of god; something godlike. The closest, i believe, humans ever get to heaven, is on Earth, in mother nature. Wikipedia says divinity refers "to powers or forces that are universal, or transcend human capacities."
i dig that, and i can believe that for now.
Can you share any common ground in that?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I view land as an asset that man can use to advance in society and what-not. By using land, we get a majority of our food (real food, not processed crap) and lumber for building houses to live in. I can share your belief on the definition of divine, I just don't see that divine aspect in nature in the way you do. As you said, this is a different discussion and if you want we can continue you it elsewhere, but this is most likely one of those "agree to disagree" situations we find so often here ProgU.
Yeah the asset frame of mind is certainly ingrained in our culture dating back to the Homestead Act or something. I have a garden and understand the importance of growing "non-processed crap". But I don't think I own the land. It's more of a native american principle, I think.
So you're going to heaven, right? Why not pollute this here Earth?
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Yeah, I love how they push their idea that there's no absolutes and such onto people and tell them not do the same with their religion. One of the main reasons that Christians and Muslims and other religions want to tell others about their religions and beliefs is usually out of love (in the Christian's case more so). In the Christian belief, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ was God's Son and that he came to this earth to die for man's sins on the cross and was brought back to life 3 days later, you guessed, they'll be getting a one way ticket to Hell. So why would the Christians be telling people this unless they cared for that person and didn't want them to go to Hell? If you look at it through the Christian's eyes, the person should be grateful that someone cares about them that much. Unfortunately, it's just about the opposite. Besides the negative side, if you do believe aforementioned statements, then you'll live eternally in Heaven. If you look at life from most other views, you die, that's it, no purpose, no point. You'd figure just to be safe, they'd consider the fact of an afterlife, but, hey, I won't judge them for their actions. It's their choice. Sorry for the rambling, I tend to follow rabbits for a looong time.
Well I enjoyed your rambling, and (obviously enough) I couldn't agree more. I know!! I always wonder why they don't consider the fact that we do it out of love! I mean, if God really didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter whether we tried to evangelize to them or not or whether we prayed for them or not. It would be irrelevant, but we would still be trying to be nice. Plus, it's been scientifically shown that God's promise that obedience to Him will make you live longer is actually true. Why? Because it takes away all your stress, duh! Well, not all, but thinking that there's an Omniscient Being that sees everything, knows what's best for you, will tell you what's best for you, will provide for you, will serve justice in the end, and loves you certainly does take a lot of the stress out of life! And then, of course, there's the one infamous thought that you touched on: If Atheists are right and we all do just turn to dust when we die, then Christians just did something that made them happy. Big deal. But if Christians are right, then Atheists are going to burn in Hell for eternity. ...That really hit me hard when we were talking about the New Age belief of reincarnation. ...If there's the chance that New Agers are right and a chance that Christians are right, I think I'm going to go with Christianity. If the New Agers are right, then I'll have plenty more chances anyway. Well, I hope you enjoyed my rambling as much as I enjoyed yours because you certainly had to read a long one.
That's interesting. I wonder how you would know...
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Could you give me another faith that wants to convert people out of love and care for that person's soul?
"In the Christian belief, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ was God's Son and that he came to this earth to die for man's sins on the cross and was brought back to life 3 days later, you guessed, they'll be getting a one way ticket to Hell."
That strikes me as too elaborate. I'm beginning to see why churches have switched to "Awakenings", Jesus camps, and those teen dance and video game nights at churches to spread their message of hope.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
Since morals generally deal with what is right and what is wrong (i.e. ethics), I fail to see how spreading the word about something is a moral. I suppose by a stretch of the imagination I can see it, but not in the typically used meaning of the word.
Furthermore, nothing is black and white. That's not to say that everyone can't have the same moral code, but things are not that clear-cut. For example, if you say killing is wrong, does that include animals as well as humans? If you say killing humans is wrong, is it still wrong (or as wrong) to kill in self defense? Are you guilty of killing someone if you hit them with a car (on accident) and they later die of injuries inflicted from the accident?
How about stealing? Is it as wrong for a person to steal things they need (seriously need, not just an exaggerated want), such as food? If you pick up some paper from your printer at the office, which your boss provides, because you ran out of paper in your printer at home, is it still wrong? Is it wrong to steal something back that was originally stolen from you?
How about lying? Is it wrong to lie to a child to protect them (say, by not telling your child you slept with someone (assuming you're not married), but rather just saying you watched a movie or something)? Is it wrong to tell someone another person will be ok, if you know they will die, or even strongly suspect they'll die (assuming you're in a position to comfort only, not like a doctor telling a family their loved one will be ok)? Is it wrong to keep some information, such as a runaway dog, from certain people when you believe you can fix the problem without heartache (or have already fixed it)?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Yes, but the Bible does not just say it's nice if people want to spread the gospel-- it commands it. If you're a Christian that takes the Word of God seriously, then God is telling you it is morally wrong for you not to fulfill this obligation.
I disagree with your statement that nothing's black and white. Since I believe in an absolute moral code, I think there is a right and wrong choice every time. It may be harder to determine sometimes, but there is one.
To answer your questions:
*I believe in Creation. Therefore I see a clear distinction between humans and animals. For that reason, I consider killing humans to be wrong and killing animals to be right.
*No, killing in self defense is not wrong.
*Accidental killing is not wrong.
*Yes, stealing is wrong. Period. (Hence my use of the word "absolute" to describe my view of morality.)
*Yes, taking the printer paper is wrong unless you are using it for work and your boss approved this use of it.
*Yes, it's wrong. In that case, you should report what was stolen from you and hope to get it back., but if you don't, the Bible says you shouldn't put such a high value on material possessions anyway. It also says to loan and expect nothing in return. As of the moment someone else steals from you, they are wrong and you're not. You shouldn't change that.
*Yes, it's wrong to lie to your children. When they ask where you were, you should simply not tell them. It's one of those "I won't answer this now. I'll tell you when you're older" things.
*Yes, it's wrong to tell them they'll be physically ok. You can tell them they'll be ok because they're actually quite lucky that they'll be in heaven instead of here (if they're saved).
*I don't quite understand the last question. Do you think you could word it more clearly?
That doesn't necessarily make it a moral. But we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because it's already clear you're not going to budge, and you'll never make me 'see the light'.
I thus find your responses remarkably interesting.
Your statements above indicate that you feel anything commanded of you (by God) is morally right. So, since killing animals is right, does that mean it was commanded of you? Does that then mean that vegetarians are sinners for the reason that they refuse to eat meat?
Why not? They're still killing. What is the clear right or wrong choice, if some people can manage to get away without doing any killing? I assume you're also very against assisted suicide as well. Who would you place the blame on in that case?
So, you'd rather a person starve to death than steal, hmm? Interesting.
Rather strict over a few pieces of paper, aren't you. Why is it so wrong to steal some paper, but not kill in self defense? Surely there's some other way...
So if you walk into your friend's house and see something of yours on the floor (let's say they picked it up at your house and didn't let you know), and you pick it up, you're in the wrong?
Cause that's not the least bit condescending. How do you feel about bending the truth some, then?
I'd like to see you comfort my boyfriend, who is Jewish. "Oh, yeah, your sister is in hell now. Oh, yeah, your mom is there too, suffering as much or more than she was when she was living. But don't worry, you can still escape that fate!" And, for the record, I was talking about a scenario where the person was still alive, but that you weren't sure whether they'd live or not. Telling someone that it'll be ok, because their sister, who is still alive, is going to go to heaven, isn't very nice.
Ok, let me try. Say, my mom was out of town, and my dog got out of the house for several hours. We searched for her, and couldn't find her until many hours after the fact. We finally did manage to find her. When my mom calls to see what's up, is it wrong not to mention that our dog got out?
Similarly, my sisters' dad has a bad habit of not taking care of my sister's animals when she's over at my mom's house. So, once a couple of her salamanders died from the heat in their aquarium while she was at my mom's house. Her dad went out and replaced the salamanders, and didn't tell her about it. Is that wrong as well?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'll only touch on your points about killing for now because I don't have too much time available right now. The Bible clearly states that the act of murdering is wrong, but it also says that if you think about it (and intend to do it) that that is a sin as well. So, if you accidentally kill someone, it was not premeditated and you didn't get into your car thinking "I think I'll go hit someone with my car today." There's a clear difference in the two.
On the note of killing animals, it's not a commandment as the Great Commission. God Himself gave Adam and Eve clothes made by animals when they were banned from the garden. Also, animal sacrifices are seen all throughout the Old Testament. I personally don't see a problem with vegetarians, they just don't eat meat, that's fine with me. I also don't see a problem with people that eat meat, it tastes good and it's good for you (most of the time). That's just my two cents.
I'll start with your question about killing animals.
*The Bible answers this in the following verses:
- Genesis 3:21 God Himself was the first one to kill animals (to make clothing for Adam and Eve); so He therefore approves of it.
- Genesis 9:1-3 "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.'" Personally, I think this verse simply means that meat will be food for us if we want it to be and therefore leaves open the option of being a vegetarian, but if another Christian thinks differently, I respect his opinion on that.
- Romans 14:14-17, which says, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," confirms my thoughts that one's convictions on food aren't really that significant and that it is in fact just that—a matter of personal conviction.
- On the topic of personal conviction, Romans 14:5 says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." This is obviously referring to a completely different matter, but it shows that we are aloud to have our own personal convictions to an extent.
- Sorry it took so long to get to the point of this answer, but I felt those verses were necessary to explain what God says about this. I feel like I should probably explain what I mean by personal conviction since it may seem to contradict what I said earlier. The Bible spells many moral issues out in black and white, (ie: Leviticus 18:22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.") but not all (ie: eating meat). It specifically says (in above-mentioned verses) that Christians are perfectly aloud to have differing personal convictions. When it comes to the gray area, each differing belief is completely right. Considering this, I believe in an absolute standard of morality, but I do believe God left some gray area in the code and told us that personal conviction is appropriate for these areas. For that reason, I’m personally not convicted that being a vegetarian is wrong.
*I think power_kord already dealt with your question about accidental killing quite well.
*Yes, I do think that assisted suicide is wrong. I blame both the one who commits suicide as well as the one who assisted him.
*Actually, God doesn’t rank sin at all. He says that every sin is equally offensive to Him. (ie: a “white” lie is as bad as murder)
*Yes. As I said last time, God tells us not to place much value on material objects in the first place. He also tells us to loan and respect nothing in return. Better yet, the New Testament as a whole gives a wonderful description of the type of person a Christian is supposed to be, and a good part of this description includes peace. (The best one-verse reference for this would probably be Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God,” but it’s really a rather large theme.) Through the numerous verses on the importance of keeping peace with our neighbors (unless one has to disobey God to do so) I think God made it perfectly clear that He would much rather us let the thing go, forgive the person, not hold a grudge, and be at peace with them than have our material possession back. (You must also remember that God promises to reward those who obey Him. That makes following Him much easier since the one who lets it go realizes that God will reward them much more than the item was worth anyway.)
*It doesn’t matter that it’s condescending. We’re talking about a little kid. Since when are Christians commanded to treat young kids as if they were adults? Also, I see no connection between this and bending the truth, but if you care to know how I feel about it, I think it’s morally wrong.
*I don’t fully understand the little rant about your boyfriend and his family…
*If you know for a fact that this would really concern her and that she would want to know, then yes.
*Yes, I think what her father did with her salamanders was wrong. That’s not directly a lie, but it’s definitely deceit, and the Bible condemns deceit as well. (Job 11:11, given as an answer as to why God was punishing one man, “Surely he recognizes deceitful men; and when he sees evil, does he not take note?”)
Unless I completely misinterpreted your post, you didn't answer my question about killing animals. I asked if it was a commandment, not if it was ok.
If there's some gray area, it's not absolute, is it?
Not on Earth he doesn't. There's a post floating around somewhere on the site about this, if you care to look more into it.
I'm not the one bringing the code of Christians into the discussion. You are. But I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't treat a little kid differently than an adult once they hit an age where they are mature enough to understand their actions. You are clearly not of that opinion.
Merely illustrating the point that you are a terrible comforter, based on what I've read.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'm sorry it took me so long to answer this, but I will now.
*I apologize. I thought the reason why you were asking if it was a commandment was to ask if I thought it was morally right. To answer your question, the commandment is that we have dominion over the animals, (ie: We shouldn't give them rights, and we should keep in mind that we are made in God's image and they're not.) not that we kill or eat them.
*Yes, it is still absolute. The things that God does tell us are absolute. The "gray" part applies only to the things He doesn't specifically tell us. The issues that God does tell us are non-negotiably right or wrong. (ie: Lying is wrong 100% of the time, period, end of story.)
*I'd be interested in reading it. That doesn't mean I'll agree, but I'll read it. Do you know who wrote it or what the title is?
*Actually, we've been talking about the Christian moral code since the beginning. You asked me what I think would be morally right in particular cases, and I, being one who holds to the Christian moral code, told you what the code says about each issue that you raised. If you want to know my thoughts on how to deal with kids, I think you should hold them completely accountable for their own actions, but if there's something you can't tell them yet, then you can't tell them. Also, if you are of the opinion that we should treat kids as equal, then why would just telling them that you were out having sex be a problem in the first place?
I disagree with your statement that nothing's black and white. Since I believe in an absolute moral code, I think there is a right and wrong choice every time.
There may be a right and wrong choice every time, but that isn't necessarily what black and what means.
"Thou shall not kill."
It's a pretty simple, concrete statement. In the area of black and white, it simply says that killing is wrong. Black and white means there is no room for interpretation. Yet, you've stated that killing in self defense, or by accident, is not wrong. By believing this, you've crossed into a grey area. The commandment is "Thou shall not kill," not "Thou shall not kill unless _______."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...
The term “morality” can be used either:
1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
I would also suggest that you are confusing certain dogmatic aspects of your religious practice with the moral code that your religion (in theory) advocates. This is a common error. Again per the SEoP...
"Morality is often distinguished from etiquette, law, and religion, all of which are, or involve, codes of conduct put forward by a society...Religion differs from morality or a moral system in that it includes stories, usually about supernatural beings, that are used to explain or justify the behavior that it prohibits or requires. There is often a considerable overlap in the conduct prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality, but religions always prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behavior that are explicitly labeled as moral guides."
You also seem to be operating under the misperception that there are only two "types" of moral codes...i.e. the "absolute" morality of the christian religion on the one hand, and the "relative" morality belonging to some atheists and other non-christian thinkers. There is however a third theory that I would like to bring to your attention, which is known as utilitarianism. This theory suggests that a society's moral codes tend to be based on a perception of best probable outcomes--mitigated by the least amount of harm--to all involved.
Personally, I tend towards the utilitarian viewpoint. To the true "moral relativist," I would suggest (much as you do) that if a moral code cannot be justified beyond "What's the benefit to ME?", then it isn't of much use to a society as a code of conduct. To the "moral absolutist," however, I would suggest that before one can rationally but forth the assertion that a group's moral code is "absolute," one must be prepared to offer at least some sort of objective evidence to support that claim. Unfortunately, neither christianity nor any other religion that is currently known can satisfy that challenge, which essentially means that "christian morality" is (per all of the available evidence) just as subjective as the moral codes of the "ethical relativists" that you criticize.
It seems to me that in fact ALL moral codes are inherently subjective (which is not the same thing as saying they are "relative"). Morals are an act of judgment...i.e. an act in which we (as humans) use our minds to evaluated the "good" in and action in order to frame our response to that act. Some may say that their decision has been instructed by "god" or some other supernatural source, but regardless the decision to agree or disagree with even that premise is left wholly in the hands (or should I say the head) of the person making the moral judgement.
To the utilitarian, the foregone conclusion is that all moral codes are based on SOMEONE's (perhaps a supernatural being, or perhaps and idividual or group of humans who were looking out for themselves) perception of the most likely path to the reach the best possible outcome with the least harm all around. One doesn't need to be religious to be moral, nor does being religious give one any special claim to moral action (which the history of the christian church demonstrates quite well, I think).
To quote one of my favorite moral philosophers...
"If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson (letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I never said that moral absolutism and moral relativism are the only options. Don't assume that you just introduced me to utilitarianism. I was simply talking about the first two at the moment. Also, this blog wasn't even an all-around blog on morality as much as it was simply intended to point out the irony of the fact that many Moral Relativists have their own moral code (which they hold as just about absolute) and, better yet, that they push it on others. Considering this, your comment was slightly irrelevant to this particular blog. I will, however, answer some of the rest of your comment.
*How do you think I'm doing this?
*Yes, morality certainly is distinct from religion in the sense that they are in no way the same thing, but my religion (and most, if not all, others) sets forth an absolute standard of morality, which is what I was discussing.
*I'm not going to say that I disagree with this part....yet, but please clarify why you think that all moral codes are subjective.
*I agree that morals are an act of judgment. Being a Christian moral absolutist, I simply think that God has told us what the correct decision is on many issues. And yes, I did intend to imply that there is often (if not always) a correct decision.
*I agree with you that one does not have to be religious to have morals, but I don't see how one could be a moral absolutist if he's not religious for one simple reason-- From where did the absolute standard of morality come? Who/what has/had the authority to issue it? For that reason, one who's not religious could certain hold to a utilitarian view of morals, but not an absolute view.
*This is slightly off topic from what you said, but the last thing I feel obligated to include is that you should keep in mind that, although many Christians agree that breaking the standard of morality that God gave us is wrong, the practical reason why Christians obey the moral code is often more utilitarian than some are willing to admit. In other words, despite their view of morality, the reason why many (or, well, some. The number of Christians who don't live the life is staggering.) Christians actually live the life the Bible tells us to live is because they fear the consequences (not even the consequences from God, simply consequences that may naturally occur) of breaking the code. For that reason, it is often not the love of God that causes even Christians to act morally, but rather the idea that they could avoid personal pain and hardship that they may otherwise inflict on themselves. Think about it. How much better would the world be if no one ever lied? What if one never had to wonder whether another person was telling him the truth or not? What if no one ever distorted facts in order to sway public opinion? That would make life much more easy for all of us. And lying is just the example I chose. You can go through the entire moral code if you feel like it. I think the least amount of harm may come by adhering to the Christian moral code. (Keep in mind that that's not the only reason why I hold to it, but it is certainly one of them.)
If you were aware of the concept of utilitarian morals, it seems a bit...arbitrary...for you to imply that we atheists fall solely into the category of "moral relativists." The relevance of my comment can seen as a rebuttal to that implication.
You say that your religion provides you with an "absolute standard of morality," but that begs the question that I asked above...i.e., how do you justify defining that standard as absolute? What evidence can you provide that would convince a neutral (which I admit that I am not) and objective (which I at least try to be) observer to accept that the standards to which you ascribe are any less relative than any other system of moral beliefs?
As to the innate subjectivity of all moral codes, first consider the relevant definitions of the terms "subjective" as opposed to "objective."
subjective - characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.
objective - of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
As you have agreed all morals are an act of judgment. And as such, these morals judgments occur solely in the mind. The multitude of differing moral standards leads me to conclude that the "absolute standards" to which you refer are not perceptible to all observers. If morals were really "absolute" as you suggest, then there would be no situational exception to the standards, which seem common enough even in the christian system.
Now, you can say (as you did) that your system of morality is absolute because you think that "god" has instructed you on the correct decisions to make, but even then, they are still decisions that occur within someone's mind...in this case, "god's"
Of course as an atheist, I am immediately compelled to ask you for evidence that this "god" fellow you speak of actually exists, and is not "himself" merely the figment of your imagination. In order to convincingly claim that your moral system is "absolute," I would suggest that you need something a little more objective to support that claim than the circular canard of appealing to your invisible sky-friend. That source is not perceptible to all observers, obviously, and is thus a subjective reliance.
As for you attribution that a non-religious person cannot hold to an absolute standard of morality, I agree. I would however go a step farther and say that no one can hold to such a standard, as the actual existence of such standards are rationally unsupportable. Simply issuing the declaration that "my moral standards are absolute" is conclusatory, and prone to the logical fallacy known as begging the question.
Basically, the question here comes back to the central flaw that poisons the well for ALL theological meanderings. The original premise of ALL theological arguments in the arbitrary and unsupportable assumption that supernatural forces and beings actually exist. The test here is really rather simple. Can you provide us with actual, objective evidence that your "god" exists? If so, then you win. If not, then your entire argument is seated in a subjective (and quite possibly inaccurate) assumption, a property with logically follows your argument through to its conclusion.
As for your comments regarding the way that christians live (or should live) in accordance with the morality that you claim "god" gave you though the pages of the bible, I think that using that source actually damages rather than supports your position. It isn't difficult to look to that source and find many, many examples of the shifting moral standards which have characterized the evolution of christian morality though the centuries. If we were to apply the moral standards set forth in the bible as an absolute measure, even this very conversation would represent (for you) an immoral act. Ahem...
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2:11-12)
Being a woman (as you are), the "absolute standard of morality" presented by the bible deems it "immoral" for you to attempt to instruct me (a man) in matters of this sort. Do you agree that your conversation with represents an immoral act on your part? If not, then I would suggest that perhaps the "absolute standard" to which you ascribe might not be quite as reliable as you seem to think.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Muslims aren't commanded to evangelize, especially not in the way Christians are commanded to. Muslims believe that a person will come to Islam if they are fated and/or choose to do so (ie - Allah leads them to the faith Himself). A Muslim can explain their religion, but cannot evangelize.
As for the website you linked, where in there are they "pushing their moral code" on others, other than doing what everyone else does and supporting the causes they feel are right?
In both these cases, there's a difference between answering questions when presented with them or correcting someone when they are factually incorrect (such as what Muslims and Atheists generally do) and pushing one's beliefs on complete strangers (such as what Christians generally do).
Also, as others have noted, evangelizing is a Christian commandment, but it is not part of a moral code. You do not need to evangelize to be moral.
And why do non-Christians get so upset when Christians try to convert them? There's a few reasons for that. The main one is that the vast majority of us have been there. We were raised in the Christian Church, we've studied the Bible and Christianity for the first two or so (or even more) decades of our lives. We know what it says and we know what actually goes on and it's generally that, and the fact that the Church itself often conflicts with the teachings of its own Holy Book, but most people don't realize it because it's constantly explained away as they continue to pick and choose what verses, chapters, even whole books to follow. The very Bibles that sit on the shelf of just about every building are actually a bastardized version of what was originally written, thereby breaking the Christian God's explicit commandment to neither add nor subtract from it.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
As you stated, many people have been brought up in church for the first few decades of their lives, but in this day, this is not the case. I don't know specific statistics but I'm sure a vast majority of people in public schools do not attend a church and probably have not (at least not consistently). Many of them have no idea what the Bible says. In fact, this is true in Christian schools as well (believe me I know). Many people in my class don't attend church and no very little about the Bible. I agree that what the church says can go against the Bible, and that's because the church is a group of people and people make mistakes and can be wrong. From what I've heard, a few translations of the Bible are translated very close to the original manuscripts that have been found. The KJV is one and the NAST is another, not positive on the NIV, but I believe it is another. When you mention the commandment to neither add nor subtract from it, that doesn't necessarily mean that helping words cannot be added. Most of the additives in Bibles are merely articles and other words that don't change the meaning of the verse in the end. The meaning of that statement is to not add or take away the truth behind the verses. Though man may change a few words here and there, the truth remains the same.
Most of the additives in Bibles are merely articles and other words that don't change the meaning of the verse in the end. The meaning of that statement is to not add or take away the truth behind the verses. Though man may change a few words here and there, the truth remains the same.
While I can't argue with your other statements (partially because neither of our claims on it are verifiable to my knowledge), you are sorely mistaken on this one, my friend. The Catholic vs the Protestant versions of the Bible are one clear example of this, since there are two or three more books in the Catholic Bible than there are in the Protestant one. There are also a number of books that were left out of the "official canon" when the scholars of the Constantine era empire establish the "official Bible" that is now in use.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The reason there are more books in the Catholic Bible is because in the early church, there were disputes on the validity of some of the "extra" books. Some of these books had some contradictory statements (blatant contradictions) and were determined to not have been divinely inspired and thus were kept as "extras" to those besides Catholics. I've been taught that these books are great to read and give a good isight on the times and thoughts of the people of that time, but aren't necessarily divinely inspired and thus have some error, just like books today. Modern books are good to read and you can gain much out of them, but they are not inspired. The "official Bible" of today, is merely the books that the early church decided were clearly inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.
And who's to say what's inspired by your one and only, your Alpha and Omega, your God of gods, and what's not? If it's inspired by God, then it's inspired by God, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The Church edited it because the books they omitted didn't fit with their agenda, it's that simple. It's also a corruption of the supposedly infallible Holy Book of Christianity.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I was not present when the early church was deciding what books should stay and which should not, I do not know their reasons and whether they are justifiable or not. When deciding which books were to stay, they used the majority principle. The 88 books that are in your standard Bible today all flow together and are consistent with eachother. The other books from the Catholic Bible had some differences in them from the other 88 and thus were omitted because they did not match up with the majority of books. It's not a perfect method by far, but it usually works, at least when it comes to this matter.
What books were left out, and a little on why.
A little more detail on why.
If you read them, particularly the second one, you'll find that some of the books were lost, while others were deemed heretical by the Church because they didn't agree with the other books. There were even some that "just weren't popular enough," partly because they were written in Aramaic, instead of Greek. It seems odd, though, that instead of simply translating it, they removed it altogether.
It also stands to reason, considering the massive political motivation the Roman Catholic Church had, that they'd leave out the books that conflicted with what the Church was trying to spread.
Some more reading, since I have to get to work.
Some more about the books left out, though I'm not too fond of the page's setup, it's written more like a blog than an article and sums up what's in the books.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well, after reading portions of the links you gave me, I'd very much like to read most of those books, especially the books of Enoch, they intrigue me. I believe one of the main reasons Christians today won't even consider the divinity of the books left out is because of the somewhat negative view of the older Roman Catholic church. I don't share this negative you for the most part against them and I think it's quite possible that the other books you mentioned are indeed inspired, espeically the book of Jasher, since it's clearly stated in the Old Testament. The only way I can see that the church may have justified the removal of the books is that it did not omit the absolutely necessary parts of the Bible. However, this would be a ridiculous idea because once you've read the necessary part (that leading to salvation), one would have no reason to read the Bible anyway. Thanks for the links by the way, they were very informative.
I obviously agree with you on most everything, but I disagree with one of your statements at the end there. Salvation is not the only necessary part. There certainly are unnecessary parts (particularly parts that are simply unnecessary for the Church Age in particular), but not everything except for salvation falls into that category. It is also completely necessary for God to give us some guidelines on how to serve Him. Otherwise, it would just be, "Ok, I'm saved. Now what? Now I'm obligated to spread the gospel so more people can be saved...so what do they do when they're saved?" Without the changed life the whole thing would lose part of its point (not the whole point, but part). Better yet, it certainly would appear to lose its entire point. The fact that a person wouldn't know how to live a changed life, wouldn't know that God desires a personal relationship with him, and wouldn't know that God would bless him if he did live this changed life would cause a person's entire motivation to accept Jesus to be what we've heard so much about-- fire insurance. Besides that, I agree with you though. :)
You're right that they're only supporting the causes they feel are right, but there are two problems with this. (1) Who/what is to determine what's "right"? Once again, they are saying that what Christians do is not MORALLY right. We're not talking about factually inaccurate. (2) The causes they are supporting do, in fact, push their morality (or lack thereof, depending on how you view it) on others. They are trying to change our society to be more compatible with their views. Once again, I have no problem with another group trying to make society more compatible with its views. The part I have a problem with is when they try to disqualify Christians from the race (the race referring to the battle over heated issues such as abortion and gay marriage) by saying that there are no moral absolutes and our reasoning for pushing anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation is therefore null and void. If there are no moral absolutes, then we are not morally wrong in pushing our views.
I would answer the part about Christians not living up to the moral standard that our Bible give us, but I feel like power kord already addressed that perfectly. The only thing I have to add to that is that, while it is not right for Christians to break the moral code we've been given, don't forget that human depravity is a key tenet to the Christian faith. If humans were not depraved, we wouldn't need the Redemer to save us.