Where do morals fit in?

I would contend that having only a single religion (whichever religion that is) would drastically lower the incidence of religious persecution - which is a contra-survival action.

As for lying - what do you think the WHOLE of contract law is based on? And before the rule of absolute law, lying to your king was considered treason.
 
Hey, our society is holding together fine and lies like evolution are taught every day in the schools (lol, cheap shot, sorry:) ).

Well this is my last post for a long time, Im going off to be a camp cabin leader for two months and then off to Bible College. Nice meeting you folks, keep it up Christians, and I'll be praying for you pagans (<--- this term being used in the most unpersonal way possible, I care for you evolution/atheist/etc folks as much as my heavenly brothers). Nice debating with yall (<-- actually, I'm Canadian).

The thing is, why would an animal even develop more rigid rules of morality? Spiritualism, religion, etc. creates division and Martyrs! How is this survival?

Also, you mention how the "Golden Rule" is a universal truth. I would ask you one question, was Jesus wise or insane? If he was wise, which looks like the case since he first articulated this universal truth, then His claims to be God and His claims to ressurection must be true. If he was insane then this truth must be the product of madmen. How was Jesus so philosophically sophisticated if he was a Hebrew carpenter claiming divinity?
 
One of your problems is you believe these moral truths were first postulated by the Bible, which is untrue.

The "Golden Rule" was NOT first articulated by Christ. This is an easily proveable truth if you are willing to accept that you are wrong and are willing to do the slightest bit of research.
 
The "Golden Rule" was NOT first articulated by Christ. This is an easily proveable truth if you are willing to accept that you are wrong and are willing to do the slightest bit of research.
Click to expand...

if you have links to support this, I would be interested in reading them. Please pardon my laziness, I have a bit on my plate right now :) but I am curious to see your sources.
 
I agree with Gen., do you have any older documents than the Dead Sea Scrolls or the New Testiment wiritngs from 90-150 AD which postulate these arguments? Scientifically speaking, the Bible is the most varifiable ancient document in the world.

Here's the stats, with comparible other documents:

Thucydides (considered a very accurate document)-
# of copies: 8
written: 400 BC
Our oldest copy: 900 AD
Cronological Diff. 1300 years
Other sources (quotes): none.

New Testament (Origional Greek)-
# of copies: 48,600 (counting origional greek only)
written: 90 AD
Our oldest copy: 125 AD
Cronological Diff. +/- 50 years
Other sources (quotes, etc): Clement, Iraneous, Tertullian.
Text Variants 20,000 lines, 40 conflicts, 0.2% difference, mostly spelling.

Homer's Illyad (considered very good)
Text Variants 15,600 lines, 764 conflicts, 5% difference.
 
While I do some research, what do you mean exactly by "most verifiable ancient document"? Especially in light of the fact that the Bible isn't a single document, but a compilation of documents.
 
Here's what I found during a quick google search (I told you it was easy, I was hoping you'd put forth the effort to look).

For that reason, Confucius does share Jesus's interest in the "Golden Rule." In fact, he's more interested than Jesus, whose main concern is with the dawning Kingdom of God, not with how humans can best live together down here. Five hundred years before Jesus, the Rule appears no less than three times in the Analects, in a refined version with a typically practical moderate twist. Confucius carefully says, "Do not do to others what you would not like yourself." (12.2) He considers the Rule central: when asked if there were "any single saying that one can act upon all day and every day," Confucius replied, "Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you." (15.23)
Click to expand...

This is from http://www.georgeleonard.com/confucian_family.htm

For those interested in George Leonard's biography: http://www.georgeleonard.com/biography.html

EDIT: Here's a quick list with some dates:

"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain done unto you."--Brahmanism, Mahabharata 5, 1517, 1000 BCE from _The_Encyclopedia_of_Religious_Quotations_ Edited and Compiled by Frank S. Mead ©1965

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."-- Pittacus, 650 BCE

"Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not do unto another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest." -- Confucius, 500 BCE

"What you do not like when done to yourself, do not do to others."-- also Confucious, 500 BCE

"Hurt not others in ways, that you yourself would find hurtful." -- Buddhism. Udana-Varga 5:18, 500 BCE, from _The_Encyclopedia_of_Religious_Quotations_ Edited and Compiled by Frank S. Mead ©1965

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." -- Thales, 464 BCE

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." -- Sextus, a Pythagorean, 406 BCE

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us." -- Aristotle, 385 BCE

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own." -- Aristippus of Cyrene, 365 BCE

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you." -- Isocrates, 338 BCE

"Do not do to others what you would not like others to do to you." -- Hillel, 50 BCE

Then, some time later . . .

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." -- Jesus of Nazareth, circa 30 CE
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for posting them

off topic. I have been so extremely swamped, that finding time to research them would have meant giving up more sleep (something of which I am already sacrificing too much) so thank you very much for indulging my request.

Gen
 
Actually that was directed to Jericho, you had already said you were busy :)

Now that you have that information before you, what do you think about it?
 
Morality Came from God: Even in the garden of Eden: God asked WHO told you you were naked?

We knew it we ate from the tree of Knowlege: As we grew as a culture; God had to consistantly remind us what was good.

In other cultures they devloped explains of where they came from and how to behave: but even if they weren't God worshippers , they made up something to broing about morality. Its basiclly in our Spirits.

Yes groups of people have been decived and twisted to do cruel things. But Our Spirit know right from wrong. Even before I was a christain, I knew right and wrong. Even the Nazi knew right from wrong. The boxx theory is unrealitic anology. If I raise a family in the boonies and taught them to be mean and wicked, this would not be "Ok" behavoir, in your spirit you would know hurts and offenses; You would try and brigde relationships and make friendships of trust.

Morality comes from GOD

You know whether you do right or wrong.
 
From a christian poin of view since u believe god created man u will always be biased that morality comes from god, it is the only conclusion for u. U can say the same thing about me being biased coming from a person who is not sure if there is a god or not.

Two moral models

Since nothing u can find in a book or the net I will say since this is from an athiest it is biased in a way, but to me it makes more sence.

Thinking about it I don't think any of us will change our minds.
 
Montrez, YOUR morality comes from YOUR God.

You said yourself that you knew right and wrong before you became a Christian, so obviously morality can exist sans deity.

My question, that everyone seems to be sidestepping is this: WHY DO YOU BELIEVE NONTHEISTS CANNOT HAVE MORALS? Do you believe that I, as an atheist, am devoid of morality because I don't subscribe to your God?

What specific morals do you believe that Christianity has offered the world that is unique to Christianity? I have already shown that the Golden Rule was NOT a Christian invention. The 10 commandments maybe? Sorry, similar tenets have also existed before Christianity. So what is it that Christianity expouses that is unique? To me, God is a "do as I say, not as I do" deity. Why? Just take a look at the OT.
 
I think nontheists can have "morals" (in a loose definition of the word), alas, as has been mentioned, it evolves based on what feels good or is politcally correct today.
 
Why in a "loose" definition of the word? Can you give me a concrete definition of what kind of morals you think I have?

I don't think morality has anything to do with what "feels good" or what is politically correct. It isn't as wishy washy as you are making it out to be.
 
If the morality of a society is found in its laws, then why all the hub hub about changing the legal definition of Marriage? Is it morrally wrong to exclude gay couples from marriage? Yesterday it was morally reprehensable, today we argue, tomorrow its a-ok! Sorry, but I just have to look at the newspapers to see morallity changing based on what feels good and is politcally correct. Now if my conclusion is incorrect, show me how.
 
Your conclusion is PARTIALLY correct. Morality isn't wholly dependant on the laws of the land. Not every German durring WWII was a Nazi, right?

Laws are but a single ingredient that makes up Morality. Morality isn't a rigid cube, nor is it a formless liquid. It is in between, laws, society, region, family, etc all push and pull at what is MORALITY. Morality also isn't one entity. Morals aren't the same across the globe.

Our morals aren't the same as they were yesterday and they won't be the same tomorrow. Our morals change, they ebb and flow and evolve due to a VARIETY of factors.
 
arg. i'm talking about something different. sorry about not being that active in religious forums. >_<

how come that all people around the world generally have the same concepts of morals?

where do they come from? you could say they evolved and helped a species become more populated but that doesn't answer why, therefore, it is ok to kill, rape, steal, and plunder and do whatever. right? it's just a social barrier in our heads supposedly.
 
So what happens in country that adopts laws that are not accepted as morally correct by the majority?
Click to expand...

Laws are adopted depending on what the majority wants. U can't go in to parlament and put a bill forward unless the majority of the mps votes for it. Well I guess u could if hold a late night sesson and not all the concervatives are there. :) But I think u're talking about the same sex marriage bill thats probobly going to be passed this year, hopefully. Since same sex marriages was a big issue during the election and the liberals still took power it would mean a majority of people are for the law to pass. Sry I went way offtopic.

how come that all people around the world generally have the same concepts of morals?
Click to expand...

Are morals around the world the same, in europe sex and nudity isn't a big deal their very open about it. But its not the same in north america.
The concept of don't kill or rape was answered by Mr. Bill, its about survival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top