Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am just saying, regardless of what a person thinks, that if god did give you morals, or if you beleive that it is from the teaching of your parents, free will is involved.
I just tried to present two different view points that come to the same outcome, free will.
I am just saying, regardless of what a person thinks, that if god did give you morals, or if you beleive that it is from the teaching of your parents, free will is involved.
I just tried to present two different view points that come to the same outcome, free will.
I hear a lot about "free will", personally I believe it is used to justify some flaws in scripture or shortcomings in logic. Regardless, if a perfect God bestowed free will, it would be a perfect free will and it would not allow man the ability to commit imperfect sin against God. IMHO.
I hear a lot about "free will", personally I believe it is used to justify some flaws in scripture or shortcomings in logic. Regardless, if a perfect God bestowed free will, it would be a perfect free will and it would not allow man the ability to commit imperfect sin against God. IMHO.
So in your opinion, "free will" is just really an excuse to plug any holes in religion. Hmmmm.....
I see it really as your parents teaching you right from wrong, but when it comes down to it, you need to make your own decisions/mistakes. God gives you a blue print on how to find your way back to him. But it is up to you to follow it. IMO
Just look at god as being your father. He guides you, teaching you right from wrong and how to live your life the right way. It is up to you once you have that knowledge to do the right thing and live the right way. It would not be "free will" if god did not allow you to make mistakes (sin). You would not have a choice then.
Although I'm not what you would call a "believer" I have noticed that many people who don't derive their morals from the injunctions of a religion simply don't have any code of ethics at all. That is, there isn't anything about which they say "that's wrong, I'd never do that." They respond to every situation by asking what's in it for them, not wanting to miss out on any possible advantage to themselves.
While I'm not saying that people who are religious necessarily do any better at living within the confines of their ethical system than non-believers, they do at least HAVE a code of conduct that they've personally accepted. That's a good place to start.
And further, there's no way to judge whether any religion helps people behave better or not, since there is no way of knowing what temptations they passed by because of religious scruples. I agree that in an enlightened society where people learned to think about others and examine their consciences, there might be no need for any ethical standards beyond what was encoded in the law. But in a society like ours, where many people act on impulse most of the time, the code of conduct promoted by most religions is better than none at all.
I hear a lot about "free will", personally I believe it is used to justify some flaws in scripture or shortcomings in logic. Regardless, if a perfect God bestowed free will, it would be a perfect free will and it would not allow man the ability to commit imperfect sin against God. IMHO.
the way i see it, if God gave us some kind of perfect fre will that didn't let us commit sin, then it wouldn't be free will, would it?
the whole point is that we had to make the choice. he offered, we make the decision.
as far as morality belonging solely to religion, no. it does not happen. someone earlier (ok, a few of them) posted that morality is the spawn of society. that is 100% true. religious or no. so yes, athiests can be just as moral and upstanding as can anyone else.
but, in my own personal belief, there is something more fundamental than morality. more than social contract theory. it is the root to which all of this is connected, and i do believe that it was given us by God. does that mean that it is mystical and we will never understand it? no. it does mean that we tend to run it over when we find it because we are still looking for the mystical and unexplainable. i think that human instinct is to form cohesive societies. i think that our instincts tell us to cooperate on some level, and therefore, social contract theory, which kinda set the basis for moral code, was a natural consequence. i think it all comes down to genes and form-follows-function, but inspired by God.
Although I'm not what you would call a "believer" I have noticed that many people who don't derive their morals from the injunctions of a religion simply don't have any code of ethics at all. That is, there isn't anything about which they say "that's wrong, I'd never do that." They respond to every situation by asking what's in it for them, not wanting to miss out on any possible advantage to themselves.
While I'm not saying that people who are religious necessarily do any better at living within the confines of their ethical system than non-believers, they do at least HAVE a code of conduct that they've personally accepted. That's a good place to start.
And further, there's no way to judge whether any religion helps people behave better or not, since there is no way of knowing what temptations they passed by because of religious scruples. I agree that in an enlightened society where people learned to think about others and examine their consciences, there might be no need for any ethical standards beyond what was encoded in the law. But in a society like ours, where many people act on impulse most of the time, the code of conduct promoted by most religions is better than none at all.
The problem with this seems to be the code itself. Look, if there were some sort of code that was infallible and undeniable (as many believers say) than I don't suspect that we'd have different sects of the same religion debating whether or not abortion was ok, the death penalty was justified, suicide bombing is or isn't justified, or any other hot topic for debate amongst interfaith interpretations. It seems to me that the code itself is the thing that is flawed. It's left open for much to debate and is strictly predicated on an interpretation. In the end, it seems to boil down to me that man can use anything for both good and bad. It seems that the good and bad is a precursor to how one interprets such things as "this code".
I am a beleiver and I do not think that there is any code per say. I do think god did give us our conscience though, that still small voice to let you know hey, should I really be doing this? Or on the flip side, yes this is the right thing to do.
Simply IMO morals are taught. Beleivers and non-beleivers alike can have just as high or just as low morals. But I think Alexia is right that it is easier not to let your morals slip when you are in a group of people with like values and interests. Church would make that easier.
But I think Alexia is right that it is easier not to let your morals slip when you are in a group of people with like values and interests. Church would make that easier.
But so would any secular humanitarian organization as well. To put that into context, the OP reflected that as "You don't need religion to be moral." What can be obtained through church that cannot be obtained through a humanitarian secular organization in terms of being moral? Quite honestly, the only thing I find different is that people believe they have their eternal sanctity intact while attending a church. That doesn't necessarily scream morality to me, just self-preservation.
I totally agree with you, but in that one line out of everything else that I said, I thought Alexia was right that being apart of a church does make it easier.
But I take it since you didn't question anything else I said, that you agreed with it?
I don't know of many secular humanitarian organizations that put an emphasis on morals quite like a church would.
Do you know of any? Not meaning to sound mean or anything, just an honest question.
We would say that we are MORE civilized in predominantly Christian lands today. That is because morality has changed.
I'd prefer to be in a buddhist country than a christian country any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexia319
Although I'm not what you would call a "believer" I have noticed that many people who don't derive their morals from the injunctions of a religion simply don't have any code of ethics at all. That is, there isn't anything about which they say "that's wrong, I'd never do that." They respond to every situation by asking what's in it for them, not wanting to miss out on any possible advantage to themselves.
Wow, just wow!
I can’t believe I just read this.
This is the most absurd statement I may have ever read.
You’re saying that not only me, but millions of people in the world have no code of ethics.
Simply wow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
