You must log in or register to comment.
Interestingly, law is considered a more effective deterrent for immoral people than religion itself!
Religious law and civil law are not very different, the latter is based on the former, historically speaking.
The difference is in who gets to judge and dole out punishments.
Religious law and civil law are not very different, the latter is based on the former, historically speaking.
Hammurabi’s Code disagrees with you.
He derived his laws from the god Shamash. He just codified and imposed his interpretation. I am well aware of the stele, I’ve seen it! As sure as Shamash is my witness!
Have you got a citation for the claim that the laws were supposed to be the divine commandments of Shamash? All the articles I can find on the code or the stele just talk about the laws themselves with no mention of religious connotations.
I feel it’s very hard to make good choices when you don’t have the full picture.
Like should I confront my toxic boss at the risk of loosing my job, or should I cave ? It’s good to want to keep your job, but it’s also pretty bad to allow for toxic behaviors.
How to find a path for peace in difficult times is tremandously hard, I feel. Sometimes it’s good to ask for a little help and guidance. To aknowledge you’d be better following whatever the guy who has the full picture and who’s “the source of goodness” than your own stupid anger.
Like that’s the whole goal, escape the circle of hate. And that I believe is beyond simple human resoning. You need a source of light to get out of your own darkness
Asking people to make “good choice” while knowing they do not have the full picture is gaslighting. It’s also how 21st century economy work.
probably mostly because of Greek philosophers
A lot has been written over the ages about the nature of goodness. The Greeks weren’t the first, nor were they the last.
Ideas such as natural law have been attested in the ancient Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope for instance. On the other hand, in European thought, Thomas Aquinas was a highly influential figure, as well as Bentham and Kant.
And then, of course, there’s the whole rest of the world.
Evangelicals are just psychopaths, kept in line through fear.
Is an action good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?
If it’s the first one, then all you’re saying is “God commands what God commands,” and assigning “good” to that is meaningless. If God commanded you to do evil things, then you would have to just blindly accept that as “good.”
If it’s the second one, then you acknowledge that there’s a source of morality independent of God that you’re judging God’s commands against to determine that his commands are good. At that point, you’re in the same place as the atheist, and it raises the question of why we need to listen to God as opposed to just going to the source.
This argument literally predates Christianity. But most religious people just think that philosophy doesn’t apply to them and that the answer to every philosophical question is just “Jesus.”
The source is God
If it’s the second one, then you acknowledge that there’s a source of morality independent of God
Good is good. Only thing is deists believe good is a person with intentions for you and everyone to reach himself, to reach goodness.
He helps you if you listen to him, but only if you listen to him. He does not “command” you are fully free to tell him to fuck of at any time
Good is good.
Not an answer.
Let me make this simple. If God shows up in the sky tomorrow and says “murder is good, actually” then is your conclusion, “Oh, I guess I was wrong about murder being bad, it turns out murder is actually good because God said so” or is your conclusion, “Oh, I guess I was wrong that God only tells us to do good things, because God just told us murder is good and we know that murder is evil?”
You’re literally doing the exact thing I described, refusing to engage with a philosophical question and just responding to it with platitudes.
So I guess your question is. Is God good or just pretending to be good ?
Well, you will certainly be very successful not to answer this if you refuse to listen. And that’s the with the rest, you will be better of not listening if your goal is to keep torturing yourself with deeply intricated philosophies.
It is your free choice. At all time
So I guess your question is. Is God good or just pretending to be good ?
No, my question is, again, whether the things God says are good because God says so, or whether the things God says are good because you’ve independently evaluated them to be good. “Pretending” has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
Well, you will certainly be very successful not to answer this if you refuse to listen.
You are the one who’s refusing to listen. I’ve asked you the same question three times now, you still haven’t given anything resembling an answer.
And that’s the with the rest, you will be better of not listening if your goal is to keep torturing yourself with deeply intricated philosophies.
Torturing myself? Do you find it torturous to examine philosophical questions? I certainly don’t. I also don’t think I’m asking anything “intricate” here. This is a simple question that Plato first posed 2400 years ago.
It’s concerning that you’re dismissing this question as some “intricated philosophy” and even more concerning that you call it “torture” to even think about it. There’s this big contradiction right in the middle of your beliefs and you’re desperately trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
It’s not about listening to me…
Good because god or good then god ? For us and with the level of knowledge we have god is above everything.
But the goal is to reach him. And then what ? What happen when we become like him ? Do we get to see other stuff, things beyond ? I guess ask me again when we get there
If in doubt, remember what Granny Weatherwax said:
'And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’
I have yet to find a counterexample.
That’s a good rule of thumb, but it runs into difficulty when you map it to the marco scale.
Whether we’re talking individual human capacity (Dunbar’s Number) or a question of public policy (for instance, in the Trolley Problem scenario) or even just common accounting and logistics principles, people become indistinguishable from things in significantly large numbers and anonymous contexts.
Bureaucracy has a de-humanizing effect on individuals. But bureaucracy is fundamental to administration of large populations. I don’t know how you square this circle without committing some degree of “sin”.
I’m not sure I agree. A person doesn’t need to be in your Dunbar group to still be treated as a person, and bureaucracy doesn’t have to be dehumanizing; though I’ll grant that doing so is an easy trap to slide into. But you can plan for the needs and behaviors of large groups of people without treating them as anything less - just look at something like event planning!
In response to the trolley problem - It does get tricky with something like triage, where you have to evaluate who gets saved on the basis of their injuries. In this case, taking a cue from Weatherwax again, I think the key would be making sure that even those who don’t get saved still get treated humanely - pain relief, comfort, etc.
A person doesn’t need to be in your Dunbar group to still be treated as a person
Not incidentally, sure. But they need to be in your Dunbar group to be seen as a person.
As soon as “treating another person” carries a price, people charged with delivering treatment are going to start falling off of it.
bureaucracy doesn’t have to be dehumanizing
Again, not incidentally. But the impulse in a bureaucracy is towards expediency. You have a large volume of people to manage and a limited amount of time / manpower / resources. So you cut corners in order to mitigate shortfalls or appease overworked staff, because you don’t see the consequences of your actions or experience guilt over it.
I think the key would be making sure that even those who don’t get saved still get treated humanely
I don’t argue that this is the strictly moral path. But it ignores the biases, the capacities, and the temperaments of the people doing the triage. At some point you need people to do the things. And people routinely put their own comfort ahead of others’ health and well-being, because personal comfort is immediate and real while the experiences of others are remote and abstract.
It rings consistent with the Wiccan Rede (Do no harm) and the ethic of reciprocity, aka The Golden Rule.
Curiously this sheds light on the common sickness of the ultra-wealthy, who are surrounded by sycophantic courtiers who readily agree with their every word bur also want a taste of their sweet, sweet lucre. Inside weeks, they start seeing themselves as experts in everything, and everyone else as NPCs.
I need some advice, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
- I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
- A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I do not agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
- Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I must admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
- Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two diverse kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
lmao that’s hilarious. saved to my disk! yeah i think that religion is like … how do i say this, like you’re asking an antique person to build an electric vehicle for you … they have neither the tools nor the knowledge to do it properly. it’s quite bizarre to think that people refuse the progress of time, and especially the progress of society by clinging onto principles of the past.
You’re taking those passages too literally:
When God (in verse 45) said that slaves are ok to buy, he meant that people, all from the start, each have slaves within their hearts. Things that we have sold or boughtten that are forced to pick our “moral cotton.” God calls for us to set these free, free our hearts from slavery.
And as God goes on to explain the logistics of buying and selling slaves…
‘logistics of buying and selling slaves’? I need some advice, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
- Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
- I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
- I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
- When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
- I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
- A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I do not agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
- Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I must admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
- Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
- I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
- My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two diverse kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
i mean, have you considered the possibility that you know intuitively what is “right” and what is “wrong” because it has been enshrined into you by 2000 years of religion?
It’s cute that you think a Jewish stick-zombie is the prevalent religious influence in the world
It says a lot about how little you know, and how worthy your opinion is
!it’s not worth a Donald Trump promise!<
Totally, when I stoned my ex wife to death for adultery I didn’t even realize it was in Leviticus.
What if it has been enshrined into us by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution because altruism is a trait that increases the survival chances of a social species?
i’m happy to hear that it works for you to follow purely your own instincts, but if you consider the typical person in for example the US today, there’s a 99.9% chance that’s not gonna work.
point is, lots of stuff are “right” because they’re socially told, even if you don’t call it religion, it’s still transported as “common mode of operation”. that’s what i meant.
That’s a pretty pessimistic view!
In my experience, most people have a pretty good feel for what’s right and wrong, it seems to be a basic function of empathy. There is a small percentage who lack this understanding, but more often it seems to me like it’s people who have been twisted one way or another that are the issue. They’ve been taught to value things over people, or that power is the only path to acceptance, or something else equally twisty.
2000 years? Religion has been around longer than that. Is it just Christianity that has “enshrined morality” into the cultures that practice it?
If you ask me to compare a country that was historically mostly Christian, like the US, against a country that was historically mostly Buddhist, like Japan, it seems to me that Japan is ahead on a lot of metrics. Compared to Americans, Japanese people pollute less, have a lower crime rate, a less militaristic foreign policy, hell, they don’t even litter.
So what, are all religions simultaneously true, despite contradicting each other left and right? If I get a society to start worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is that going to eventually “enshrine morality” in that society, even among nonbelievers? Or is it just your particular religion that’s correct, and the fact that morality doesn’t actually correlate with societies practicing it is just a glaring hole in your argument?
all good points. by “2000 years” i didn’t mean exactly 2000 years. can also be more or less of course.
and yeah, i like the japanese views a lot too, they do a whole lot of things better than us.
Good and bad, as in what quality? Like good versus evil or beneficial versus detracting? Perhaps, if we apply Calvinism, I always choose good regardless because I was made that way? Or, my environment of virtuous organizations blended me into a good character? But if I had been raised in abuse, I may have been twisted a bit?
All I know is I try to choose better because Marcus Aurelius’s quote: “If you live a virtuous and good life and God is kind and just, He shall welcome you. And if He’s unjust, then at least you lived virtuously (and people may look upon your memory fondly).” Sorry, I added the parenthetical. And it’s not the precise quote, I think?
I think it’s a bit more complex than this.
I think, in religious households, instead of being taught to be a good caring person you are taught to be as selfish as possible while staying within the rules.
So it’s not that religious need eternal threat of damnation, it’s that they have been taught to be as selfish as possible.
So I don’t think they lack morality naturally but they have been taught to be horrible people who obey laws.
I think, in religious households, instead of being taught to be a good caring person you are taught to be as selfish as possible while staying within the rules.
They’re given absolution for their sins. It allows them to be cunts, and at the end of the week, Jesus washes away all their nasty actions.
Some of the worst people I’ve ever met in my life have been hardcore Jesus cultists. The kind that, when they say “god bless you”, it feels more like “go fuck yourself”.
That said, in high school (80s) I met a couple of Catholic girls and found they were more sexually open then some other girls. I remember one time we were going though a Kama Sutra book and I joked and said something like “Your God isn’t going to like this one.” and she laughed and said “that’s what confession is for”. I always remembered that.
I also swore to hang out with more Catholic girls.
That said, in high school (80s) I met a couple of Catholic girls and found they were more sexually open then some other girls.
yeah, that’s a really interesting observation, and i have made it too on numerous occasions (both when i was still a student, but it’s also a recurring theme in movies and such). i’m still not really sure what causes it.
the probably most straight-forward interpretation would be that christianity teaches the people to have lots of kids. well, to have lots of kids, you need lewd women. so maybe christianity actually causes it intentionally.
Looking back I figure it was simple rebellion from strict parents. These girls went to a private girls high school, wore the uniform, all that. After school they came and hung out with the alt punk kids. In all, I probably hooked up with 6 of them and knew of a few more. They were all hyper sexual. Lots of my “firsts” (threesome, anal, etc) were with those girls.
I can also add I dated a few Catholic women later in my mid-late 20s who also went to all girls schools. That rebellion, if they also had it in their teens, had subsided. None of those women were what I would call adventurous. No complaints, it was all fine and fun, but we weren’t trying to 69 in the car just to see if it could be done at a public park at midnight.
(Yes, it can be done. It’s not comfortable at all but worth trying for a laugh)
So I don’t think they lack morality naturally but they have been taught to be horrible people who obey laws.
it would be interesting to do an A/B testing study where one takes the people who would typically grow up in a religious household and places them in a household completely without religious indoctrination, and see whether they turn out better or worse.
i mean, there’s lots of correlation studies that already prove that “christians” in the US are shitheads. and that people who don’t identify as christians are typically morally superior in basically any metric. the question is: does that imply causation?
i.e. a possible mechanism is that the really worst people in society need religion to not be even worse people, i.e. you don’t see how bad it would get if there was no religion. that’s a possibility that has to be seriously considered. i’m honestly not sure what would be found out.
That’s a remarkably good point
It’s conspicuous how adept the religious are at mental gymnastics
I always thought that it was because were looking for ways to justify their shitty behaviour, it never occurred to me that that was a taught thing
That makes it so much worse…
I like what Ricky Gervais said about it. He asked Stephen Colbert if he believed in any of the other 3000 gods from human history. Stephen said he did not. Ricky told him that he just believes in one less than he does.
Ricky is GOAT.
Most religious fundies like this lack a conscious and do no know such things exist in others.
I don’t think that most “lack” a conscience. I do think their conscience is either malformed or severely stunted.
I think, for the ones who are just decent people, it’s more that they misattribute where it’s coming from
I definitely agree with that. They think their conscience is “the voice of God” even when it specifically contradicts their preferred fable.
Religious idiot wanting to sound smart. A classic.
I for example do not poke my eyes out with a fork… Because doing so it bad. It’s actually really simple to decide if something is bad. Much harder to decide something is bad and then realize it’s good and choosing it because it is good. I change mind all the time. Science too, it’s part of science. You see 👀 results from a test and you realize you were either right or wrong and then you test again… Something different.
Yeah, the threat of temporary punishment should do the trick!
