Morals.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We relate to existence in such a way that we can modify how we deal with it. If it's cold, we cover ourselves with fur and if it's too hot we cool our environment down. We build houses to provide a safe haven and even modify our means of transportation. We grow food. We hunt food.

All of these activities are moral activities because they enhance and sustain our lives.

Morality deals with how we relate to existence, how well we survive, and how we survive.

We must discover the truth in all things in order to survive. That is our fundamental moral imperative. Dealing with others of our own kind is just one area of moral application. The biggest reason most people think morality deals with our relationship with other people is that humans are the most complicated entity we've ever had to deal with.

We must identify the truth about what it means to be human just as we must identify the truth in all things. The confusion comes when we deal with humanity differently than we deal with a right angle.

In the Ten Commandments, we have an implied statement of the identity of humanity. That constitutes a moral code for dealing with other people. But morality covers all things, not just human relationships.

[Southtown]

You're losing it, Steve. :naughty: Since when did the notions of right and wrong become a means of personal survival? I mean, beneficial actions aren't always the same as morally right actions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

Since when did the notions of right and wrong become a means of personal survival?

We're talking about morals and how they relate to humankind. Have you ever considered the fact that we have to obey moral principles in order to survive? That predates any religion.

Dealing with existence is fairly simple. Dealing with predatory humans is not. You think morality is only involved in human relationships and I agree that it is the hardest aspect of morality but it is only one aspect of it.

In your terms, morality would be said to provide a way for people to co-exist harmoniously. The end result is survival for the most people.

You disagree with me because you realize that if I'm correct, then morality should be a science and not abdicated to religion. In other words, we'd develop a rational moral code based upon valid identifications about Man as opposed to dictates from on high.

 

Whether you like it or not, every religion has as its foundation some image of man's identity. To the extent the image is valid, then the religion will be strong. To the extent that it is wrong, that religion will be weak.

 

Please tell me how a religion can incite its followers "in the name of all that's holy" to kill others who don't believe? What is it about religion that has caused so much bloodshed? What is the weakness, the flaw, the reason behind that? Pinpoint the insanity at the root of that evil. It is my view that a lie is at the bottom of it and it's common to all religions.

 

We do not have a religion based upon a definition of Rational Human. If we did, perhaps we'd end the suffering which our irrational religions are imposing on mankind at this very moment.

[Southtown]

Southtown:We're talking about morals and how they relate to humankind. Have you ever considered the fact that we have to obey moral principles in order to survive? That predates any religion.

Morals have to do with right and wrong, good and evil. Whatever you define those as, they don't have any bearing on survival of self. Quite the opposite. The moral thing to do is to do without, so that another can do for themselves. Very contradictive of survival instincts. Acknowledging intellectually that altruism may be more beneficial to humanity as a whole than egoism, doesn't change our natural survival instincts. At most it just gives us a guilty conscience. (see Gen 3:11)

 

Dealing with existence is fairly simple. Dealing with predatory humans is not. You think morality is only involved in human relationships and I agree that it is the hardest aspect of morality but it is only one aspect of it.

In your terms, morality would be said to provide a way for people to co-exist harmoniously. The end result is survival for the most people.

You disagree with me because you realize that if I'm correct, then morality should be a science and not abdicated to religion. In other words, we'd develop a rational moral code based upon valid identifications about Man as opposed to dictates from on high.

 

Whether you like it or not, every religion has as its foundation some image of man's identity. To the extent the image is valid, then the religion will be strong. To the extent that it is wrong, that religion will be weak.

I think you are wrong for the reasons in my above paragraph. I think moral dictates should be abdicated. Period. I don't care who does it or why. The fact is they are beneficial. Sadly, I don't see it happening, whether from science or religion.

 

Please tell me how a religion can incite its followers "in the name of all that's holy" to kill others who don't believe? What is it about religion that has caused so much bloodshed? What is the weakness, the flaw, the reason behind that? Pinpoint the insanity at the root of that evil. It is my view that a lie is at the bottom of it and it's common to all religions.

 

We do not have a religion based upon a definition of Rational Human. If we did, perhaps we'd end the suffering which our irrational religions are imposing on mankind at this very moment.

The death of some paved the way for death to be undone. Jesus had to be born before anybody could be saved. This makes the preservation of Israel of utmost importance for the merciful resurrection that God promised us all. Not only that, but there had to be a form of moral shelter available so that the holy baby could first become a man. Add to this the fact that the whole plan had to be somewhat hidden so that the Jews would actually deliver Jesus to be crucified. The nation of Israel was the unwitting prophet and executioner of the Messiah for the rest of the world, much like Levite Priests offered lambs on an alter for the forgiveness of Ancient Israel.

 

Whether you believe it or not, this message is entirely consistent.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

Morals have to do with right and wrong, good and evil. Whatever you define those as, they don't have any bearing on survival of self. Quite the opposite. The moral thing to do is to do without, so that another can do for themselves. Very contradictive of survival instincts. Acknowledging intellectually that altruism may be more beneficial to humanity as a whole than egoism, doesn't change our natural survival instincts. At most it just gives us a guilty conscience. (see Gen 3:11)

Very contradictive of reason too. I couldn't have summed up why irrational religion leads to insanity any better than you have.

Right and wrong are meaningless without a connection to truth. Good and evil relate to life. That which sustains and enhances life is the good. That which doesn't is evil.

Morality pertains to truthful identifications about Humans and how they relate to truth. The common insanity inherent in all religions (so far) is that they require we abdicate the truth in favor of Gen 3:11 or some other number, some other scripture, some other substitute for reason.

Far from being surprised at the horrors brought about by religious zealots, all I see is the other shoe dropping when another suicide bomber reaches for heaven. Kind of the ultimate altruistic sacrifice, wouldn't you say?

[Southtown]

Southtown:Very contradictive of reason too. I couldn't have summed up why irrational religion leads to insanity any better than you have.

Right and wrong are meaningless without a connection to truth. Good and evil relate to life. That which sustains and enhances life is the good. That which doesn't is evil.

K... so by this reasoning, when their are two Aborigines, but only one apple, the moral thing to do is fight over it, correct?

 

Morality pertains to truthful identifications about Humans and how they relate to truth.

Or... you could look it up in the dictionary.

 

The common insanity inherent in all religions (so far) is that they require we abdicate the truth in favor of Gen 3:11 or some other number, some other scripture, some other substitute for reason.

Or at least consider it rationally without getting offended and pissed off.

 

Far from being surprised at the horrors brought about by religious zealots, all I see is the other shoe dropping when another suicide bomber reaches for heaven. Kind of the ultimate altruistic sacrifice, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. This is why I say morality is universal. Some acts are obviously horrendous, and some religions do deceive people into committing them. But these truths don't by themselves make this an intelligent deliberation of the validity of biblical morality. My stance continues to be that biblical morality is irrefutable.

 

P.S. The Jihad comment is called a strawman argument. I hope you can do better than that.

[ughaibu]

Sharing the apple is both the moral and survival oriented course of action, humans are social animals and survive as societies.

[Southtown]

Good answer. LOL Not sure where I was going with that.

 

Steve, build your morality how you want to. Then humor me and seriously discuss the bible with it, rather than discussing the zealots who may misinterpret or manipulate it. You may be surprized what the scriptures actually say.

“

(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);”

—

Romans 2:14-15 asv

The above verses make morality subjective. Consider also the below verses applying your concept of truth and those who deny it.

“

But the Spirit saith expressly, that in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men that speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth.”

—

1 Timothy 4:1-3 asv

[Southtown]

The common insanity inherent in all religions (so far) is that they require we abdicate the truth in favor of Gen 3:11 or some other number, some other scripture, some other substitute for reason.

Plainly, I agree with you. What you may not know is that Jesus was saying that, too. The Jews had forgotten the substance of the commandments. They were blind-folded by centuries of accumulated traditions. He put the common sense morality back into the law. And then He told them that the law didn't save, but that common sense morality did. Don't believe me?

 

Something else you may not yet realize is that I don't think morality can be enforced. I talked with you previously about this. A moral code has to do with a subjective distinction between right and wrong. Therefore, people don't usually accept enforced doctrine. (Some do, unfortunately.) They have to first investigate a new morality to see how it meshes with their own. I have a definite problem with scientists, politicians, acadame, or even religion dictating to me what I see as right and wrong. I believe what I believe because I thought about it.

 

You can't enforce morality because of what it is. It's who we are. It's what we think, feel, and believe. All we can do is plead with people to consider a morality through reasoning, like I am trying to do with the bible. But the problem is, most times, that people don't even consider it, or they have and they don't want to consider it further. Science doesn't normally give up on reconsidering old progess, and for good reason. We might have missed something. And besides, there's no harm in confirmation... if we were right.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

Something else you may not yet realize is that I don't think morality can be enforced. I talked with you previously about this. A moral code has to do with a subjective distinction between right and wrong. Therefore, people don't usually accept enforced doctrine. (Some do, unfortunately.) They have to first investigate a new morality to see how it meshes with their own. I have a definite problem with scientists, politicians, acadame, or even religion dictating to me what I see as right and wrong. I believe what I believe because I thought about it.

Well, you've made sense here. However, I don't agree with your use of the word 'enforced'. Did you mean 'morality cannot be dictated? I would agree with that. In my 'world', morality must be chosen. Any action taken under the barrel of a gun is amoral. I've heard it said that 'morality ends where a gun begins'. I agree with that completely.

But that doesn't mean that the law of the land isn't based upon moral concepts. Of course it is. So, in this sense, morality is enforced when it becomes the basis for the laws of the land.

The implication is that one must come to accept that certain actions are not moral, not valid, and will not be allowed.

The confusing part is separating human action into two categories. One category deals with actions that affect others and the second category deals with actions that do not affect others. The laws of the land should be intended to limit the affect on others that the actions we take can have. When those actions do not affect others, that is where the laws of the land should end. This is the bleeding edge question concerning morality. How others are affected by the actions I take must take into account the identity of Man. We cannot answer that question without an understanding of what it means to be human.

To the extent that religious doctrine are based upon logical identifications which to the limit of current understanding are true, I agree with them. I would agree with them no less if they were stated in the Bible or the Koran or with grafitti on a wall. In addition, I give my profound and heartfelt thanks to all such correct identifications regardless of who made them or in which document they were made.

Also, please understand that to the extent that religious doctrine attempts to better mankind and to bring happiness and joy to people, I agree with it. But, the success of doctrine is based upon the truth value of the image of man implied or specifically stated in that doctrine. If that image is corrupt in any way, the doctrine is likely wrong.

[Sobabi]

Of course you don't. Religion is itself proof of the existence of morals. Think about it; if there is god, then as the great books say, humans are moral creatures with a sense of what is right and wrong. If there is no god, then who came up with religion and the moral rules in it? They are just encoding existing morality.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Sobabi:

Of course you don't. Religion is itself proof of the existence of morals. Think about it; if there is god, then as the great books say, humans are moral creatures with a sense of what is right and wrong. If there is no god, then who came up with religion and the moral rules in it? They are just encoding existing morality.

Regardless of whether or not God exists and in spite of every religious manuscript ever written, mankind is still a moral creature. At best, religion has identified part of what that means.

 

What if Man did not exist? Would morality still exist?

[Southtown]

I don't think so. The animals have free will, but do they discern right from wrong? Justice and transgression are totally foreign concepts to them. Kill or be killed... you win some you lose some. Humans think that we owe each other a certain freedom of movement, so-to-speak. And I find it curious that every human has a concept of right and wrong, or "knowledge of good and evil". Also, I find it quite a coincidence that this knowledge spells bad news for mankind. God warned them not to eat of that tree. (Genesis 2:17)

 

More than just constructing a proper system of justice with it, we over-use morality sometimes, to deem each other either acceptable or contemptible. It serves as a means of control by governments and religious systems. The US currently has 2.4 million laws and almost that many inmates. We also condemn each other, causing dissension and strife, or show favoritism, causing jealousy. (Think of gossip and office rumors.) And sometimes we see ourselves as imperfect and bear regret in life, causing shame and envy. Our ability to judge our own actions has not led to better behavior, but only causes disharmony. (Romans 3:20-23)

 

Funny that the purpose of morality is to help us all get along and improve our lives. Even properly applied, a valid standard of decency by itself doesn't necessarily mean we care for others. Conversely, just because we do something wrong doesn't mean we are proud of it. A just God would not condemn a caring person who made a mistake while approving a mean person who simply refrained from acting out. Our actions become irrelevant in judgement, then, since we all make mistakes. What matters is whether we're truly penitent or not. This is common sense, and the bible agrees.

 

Concerning the Law of Moses, it's not a ruler to measure mankind. It is the fingerprint of Jesus, serving as a validator of his divine nature so we would recognise the true Messiah. The feasts and rituals likewise are prophetic enactments for the future events of the crucifixion and the second coming. Jesus acted according to the Law of Moses, being sinless naturally, because it was a description of his nature. He didn't have to try to be good. But the misconception comes from not understanding the scriptures. God isn't picking people for the new earth based on whether they can upstage Jesus, but based on who they are inside. God weighs the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7; Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 7:12; Matthew 22:36-40; Galatians 5:14; Galatians 5:22-26)

 

As the verses above point out, the law of God is love, which is in the heart. Love is why we would be good to each other, not because we have to or because it is logical or even because it is right, but because we care. That is acceptible to God, and for that he can overlook our mistakes. If we follow this foundational principle, which often contradicts logic, then we won't use our moral standards against each other. And we won't tout them above one another for purposes of prestige or control.

“

Wherefore it shall come to pass, that, when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.”

—

Isaiah 10:12 asv

Point being, you (or science) can make a new morality, one based on reason and logic. You gotta good point about discerning who is affected. I honestly think that would be a good way to do it. And a logical morality is highly needed. It might not make a difference to everyone, though, but some will take it to heart.

“

He will again have compassion upon us; he will tread our iniquities under foot; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”

—

Micah 7:19 asv

[questor]

which moral values are NOT contained in the Bible or Talmud or Koran? why would one think that a human being comes into the world with any morals at all? some human beings never develop morals, they become thieves, murderers and various types of criminals. if you did not learn morals and values from your parents, where did you learn them? where did your parents learn their morals? and your grandparents? ad infinitum. morals have been handed down in religious texts, where else do you find them? the concept of morals and values may have preceeded religion, but religion codified them. this is one of the major contrbution of all religions.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Southtown:

As the verses above point out, the law of God is love, which is in the heart. Love is why we would be good to each other, not because we have to or because it is logical or even because it is right, but because we care. That is acceptible to God, and for that he can overlook our mistakes. If we follow this foundational principle, which often contradicts logic, then we won't use our moral standards against each other. And we won't tout them above one another for purposes of prestige or control.

In the movie "Bladerunner" a really beautiful character, an android, spares his hunter's life at the very end of the movie shortly before he 'dies'. He does so out of a love of life. I wish I could remember the dialog, it was really beautiful. Love is the highest value we can place on something. I would hope that most people feel that way about their life but sometimes I wonder.

Somehow that love must be at the bottom of a moral code. I think that is the sense you speak of when you say care. A moral code should protect and sustain that love of life. But I wouldn't say that to love life is illogical, quite the contrary.

On the other hand, to hate life would be the antithesis of morality.

[CraigD]

which moral values are NOT contained in the Bible or Talmud or Koran?

”Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” – a central principle of skepticism.

 

A sizable community of people believe it wrong to hold absolute belief in objects and events they have not observed, concluding that such beliefs directly and indirectly cause much personal and social suffering. The late Carl Sagan’s 1996 book ”The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” stands out among many books and essays articulating this position.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Questor:

which moral values are NOT contained in the Bible or Talmud or Koran? why would one think that a human being comes into the world with any morals at all? some human beings never develop morals, they become thieves, murderers and various types of criminals.

I think we are born moral creatures. That does not mean that we practice a rational moral code. It simply means that for us to survive and sustain ourselves we must choose to live or to die. We either love our lives or we don't. Those that do love their life will very likely practice a moral code based upon that love. Those that don't love their life sometimes end up practicing a moral code contrary to what we would consider 'good'. And then there are the legions in the middle.