Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2023, 01:34 PM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,494,494 times
Reputation: 3415

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Nope. I don't think you are getting it.

When "humans" solely decide to form their own standards and morals then they are bound to be changed over time - and such a society is bound to go astray (perhaps sometimes in the name of progression).

For the folks you are talking about in Duba and their choice of clothes and their freedoms and their morals and their standards; are all defined by their faith. And they are happy with it.

This may not be for you because you don't have a religious faith - which is fine.

Now, being a faithless person, what you consider "reasonable and normal" today, will definitely NOT be normal and reasonable in the future in the world of faithless people.

On the other hand
What is considered normal and reasonable based on the guidance provided to them by their faith, will ALWAYS be normal and reasonable.

And yes, there will be shades of gray where some will follow the guidelines, and some wont. But that's a different topic.

Already answered above.
When humans solely decide what's good and what's bad - then they are bound to go astray. May be not instantly - but gradually.

How men decide how woman wish to be treated? And you see that only in the Muslim world? Not sure if it's a joke or an irony?

You still didn't answer, how would you reply to the Spanish and Arab women telling you what to do in your society what do they think is right in their society?
Sorry I'm not getting it. Sure am trying though. Or is that a euphemism for simply not seeing good reason to agree with you or share your perspective? I'm not sure about "it," but I think I get you just fine...

All us humans "solely decide to form their own standards and morals" one way or another. Thanks to one source, influence or life experience of one kind or another. All of us do the same thing. We just don't all agree what those standards and morals should be or for what reasons is all. We go "astray" when our judgements are clouded or wrongly/negatively influenced, and of course about this too we will not all agree. However, you, me and everyone passes judgement one way or another. Choosing what source of direction to follow or not. For better or worse as any individual, group, or society may ultimately decide.

No different from how we pass judgement about Nazis, racists, religious zealots, political leaders, religion, atheists. All of us! No different. We may go wrong "in the name of progression," again of course. But not if we actually make progress. What is progress is yet another somewhat subjective matter as well, but looking back at how we've progressed in terms of many social or civil rights, most reasonable people agree as to what that progress has involved as well as agree it's been for the better; for minorities and women in particular.

BTW, you might take a moment to consider that even before women had the right to vote, most women were "happy" with how things were. It took a few women, the exceptions to the rule, who pushed for better. Equality. Even despite the women who were "happy!" Today however, most women appreciate those hard fought for freedoms that then were considered radical.

Indeed, how is it you know whether all these women you say are happy are actually happy?

My not following any religion doesn't have anything to do with my opinion(s) along these lines, and even when I was a Christian/Catholic, I'm not sure I would say all women subscribing to Catholic ways, traditions and norms were happy about them. How are you so well all knowing about such things I wonder? Especially women.

Also of course, these norms are likely to change and perhaps even my judgement as to what is "reasonable and normal" will be proven otherwise in the future, but what is your point? We are not all to judge as best we can regardless? I can't pass judgement about how religious people may treat gay people for example? Whether women should be allowed a greater roll in religions? Government? Positions of leadership? None of us should pass judgement about such things because what is "reasonable or normal" is not necessarily agreed upon or always subject to change? Please.

I live in the here and now in any case, and I pass judgement as best I am able. Ideally to promote better over worse. For all concerned. That's all. Plain and simple. Knowing full well people will disagree with my opinions along these lines, but disagreement doesn't mean my judgement is unworthy or unjustified. To establish the right or wrong about such things, people MUST consider all there is to consider in terms of how people are affected for better or worse. I am against undue influence by men over women, poor treatment on the part of the majority toward minorities. Religious bigotry regardless of the religion. My lack of faith doesn't keep me from proper judgement. It allows me to be objective in ways that religious people can't!

After all is said and done and "the chips fall where they may," if then anyone wants to disregard whatever is decided by me, you, any group, religion or society, and if this is what makes them "happy," then okay! Sure! Of course I respect anyone's right to do as they wish. "Long as they stay in their lane" is all.

I may be "faithless" far as you are concerned. I don't put my faith in religion. This is true, but this does not mean I don't have faith in a good many other things I deem more worthy. Again as a result of the best manner of judgment I have been able to develop. Just as you and everyone else does. Who knows best? Hard to say, but I've never believed men necessarily know what is best for women. History has demonstrated how this is not the case, and today's world still demonstrates this in fairly certain terms. What is it you think I see "only in the Muslim world?" I see what I see everywhere, and I excuse nothing regardless the religion, the color of one's skin, gender, the country or customs! No joke. No irony.

Why do you suggest such a thing? Because Muslim customs happens to be the focus here? This means I only see what I see among Muslims? Come on now...

I thought I answered the question well enough, but okay, here goes again more specifically as I've got to be signing off and moving onto other things now. How would I reply "to the Spanish and Arab women telling you what to do in your society what do they think is right in their society?"

Sorry, as I always say with these sorts of general questions, we need specifics. What is the Spanish or Muslim women telling me to do? Go topless on a public beach. No problem. Wear a Burka? No thanks.

Is this a trick question?

I'm not telling anyone what to do in any case. At least understand this simple fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2023, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,716 posts, read 13,262,632 times
Reputation: 9708
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
When humans solely decide what's good and what's bad - then they are bound to go astray. May be not instantly - but gradually.
Humans are the only ones making such decisions, whether or not with religious pretenses or justifications. Hilarity ALWAYS ensues because people aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect.

And morality doesn't just devolve, it also evolves. I don't think you can coherently argue that commonly held societal views on things like slavery or voting rights aren't more inclusive and welcoming and fair than they were, say, 200 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
On the other hand
What is considered normal and reasonable based on the guidance provided to them by their faith, will ALWAYS be normal and reasonable.
No -- there IS no other hand. Even if for the sake of argument, religious morality never changes in any way -- which is patently false -- it would then fail to adapt to current needs and understandings, and therefore be dysfunctional. Morality being changeable is a feature, not a bug. Do you think the laws and penalties for spitting tobacco on the street should be brought back? Do you think we should re-institute the laws that made slaves the property of the slave-owner and exempted them also from (mis)treating their "property" however they wished?

In any case, religious morality amounts to an add-on to societal morality ... it inherently can never be very different from societal morality, and only in certain ways. Why? Because otherwise it would be ... wait for it ... immoral. Just let a church that believes in polygamy practice its beliefs, and see what happens. Heck, look at what DID happen: Mormonism decided that polygamy was bad after all, and abandoned it entirely, not just as a central tenet of the faith. Now only rebel / splinter groups practice it, and leaders of those groups have seen the inside of jails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 10:30 AM
 
29,335 posts, read 9,494,494 times
Reputation: 3415
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Humans are the only ones making such decisions, whether or not with religious pretenses or justifications. Hilarity ALWAYS ensues because people aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect.

And morality doesn't just devolve, it also evolves. I don't think you can coherently argue that commonly held societal views on things like slavery or voting rights aren't more inclusive and welcoming and fair than they were, say, 200 years ago.

No -- there IS no other hand. Even if for the sake of argument, religious morality never changes in any way -- which is patently false -- it would then fail to adapt to current needs and understandings, and therefore be dysfunctional. Morality being changeable is a feature, not a bug. Do you think the laws and penalties for spitting tobacco on the street should be brought back? Do you think we should re-institute the laws that made slaves the property of the slave-owner and exempted them also from (mis)treating their "property" however they wished?

In any case, religious morality amounts to an add-on to societal morality ... it inherently can never be very different from societal morality, and only in certain ways. Why? Because otherwise it would be ... wait for it ... immoral. Just let a church that believes in polygamy practice its beliefs, and see what happens. Heck, look at what DID happen: Mormonism decided that polygamy was bad after all, and abandoned it entirely, not just as a central tenet of the faith. Now only rebel / splinter groups practice it, and leaders of those groups have seen the inside of jails.
Thank you.

"The guidance provided to them by their faith, will ALWAYS be normal and reasonable?"

What do the Shia and/or Sunni say about that notion?

To your point, from what sources -- other than religion -- might we find better guidance?

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 01:41 PM
 
6,115 posts, read 3,046,487 times
Reputation: 2405
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Humans are the only ones making such decisions, whether or not with religious pretenses or justifications. Hilarity ALWAYS ensues because people aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect.

And morality doesn't just devolve, it also evolves. I don't think you can coherently argue that commonly held societal views on things like slavery or voting rights aren't more inclusive and welcoming and fair than they were, say, 200 years ago.

No -- there IS no other hand. Even if for the sake of argument, religious morality never changes in any way -- which is patently false -- it would then fail to adapt to current needs and understandings, and therefore be dysfunctional. Morality being changeable is a feature, not a bug. Do you think the laws and penalties for spitting tobacco on the street should be brought back? Do you think we should re-institute the laws that made slaves the property of the slave-owner and exempted them also from (mis)treating their "property" however they wished?

In any case, religious morality amounts to an add-on to societal morality ... it inherently can never be very different from societal morality, and only in certain ways. Why? Because otherwise it would be ... wait for it ... immoral. Just let a church that believes in polygamy practice its beliefs, and see what happens. Heck, look at what DID happen: Mormonism decided that polygamy was bad after all, and abandoned it entirely, not just as a central tenet of the faith. Now only rebel / splinter groups practice it, and leaders of those groups have seen the inside of jails.
Religiously morality vs man made morality.
There is some common ground to it but the biggest difference is, the fundamentals of religious morality tend to say constant while man made morality not only changes over time, it also differs from society to society.

Take for example, theft - which is morally wrong - both in religious morality and in man made morality. Both religion and man laws are in place to stop it.

Religious morality did not change but man made morality did.
We saw it recently in California where a theft of under $950 is not a crime or punishable by law any more. You may thump your chest that this is a great sign of progression as we evolve - and so does our morality. But looting scenes in the retail store pose a different picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 01:44 PM
 
6,115 posts, read 3,046,487 times
Reputation: 2405
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
Sorry I'm not getting it. Sure am trying though. Or is that a euphemism for simply not seeing good reason to agree with you or share your perspective? I'm not sure about "it," but I think I get you just fine...

All us humans "solely decide to form their own standards and morals" one way or another. Thanks to one source, influence or life experience of one kind or another. All of us do the same thing. We just don't all agree what those standards and morals should be or for what reasons is all. We go "astray" when our judgements are clouded or wrongly/negatively influenced, and of course about this too we will not all agree. However, you, me and everyone passes judgement one way or another. Choosing what source of direction to follow or not. For better or worse as any individual, group, or society may ultimately decide.

No different from how we pass judgement about Nazis, racists, religious zealots, political leaders, religion, atheists. All of us! No different. We may go wrong "in the name of progression," again of course. But not if we actually make progress. What is progress is yet another somewhat subjective matter as well, but looking back at how we've progressed in terms of many social or civil rights, most reasonable people agree as to what that progress has involved as well as agree it's been for the better; for minorities and women in particular.

BTW, you might take a moment to consider that even before women had the right to vote, most women were "happy" with how things were. It took a few women, the exceptions to the rule, who pushed for better. Equality. Even despite the women who were "happy!" Today however, most women appreciate those hard fought for freedoms that then were considered radical.

Indeed, how is it you know whether all these women you say are happy are actually happy?

My not following any religion doesn't have anything to do with my opinion(s) along these lines, and even when I was a Christian/Catholic, I'm not sure I would say all women subscribing to Catholic ways, traditions and norms were happy about them. How are you so well all knowing about such things I wonder? Especially women.

Also of course, these norms are likely to change and perhaps even my judgement as to what is "reasonable and normal" will be proven otherwise in the future, but what is your point? We are not all to judge as best we can regardless? I can't pass judgement about how religious people may treat gay people for example? Whether women should be allowed a greater roll in religions? Government? Positions of leadership? None of us should pass judgement about such things because what is "reasonable or normal" is not necessarily agreed upon or always subject to change? Please.

I live in the here and now in any case, and I pass judgement as best I am able. Ideally to promote better over worse. For all concerned. That's all. Plain and simple. Knowing full well people will disagree with my opinions along these lines, but disagreement doesn't mean my judgement is unworthy or unjustified. To establish the right or wrong about such things, people MUST consider all there is to consider in terms of how people are affected for better or worse. I am against undue influence by men over women, poor treatment on the part of the majority toward minorities. Religious bigotry regardless of the religion. My lack of faith doesn't keep me from proper judgement. It allows me to be objective in ways that religious people can't!

After all is said and done and "the chips fall where they may," if then anyone wants to disregard whatever is decided by me, you, any group, religion or society, and if this is what makes them "happy," then okay! Sure! Of course I respect anyone's right to do as they wish. "Long as they stay in their lane" is all.

I may be "faithless" far as you are concerned. I don't put my faith in religion. This is true, but this does not mean I don't have faith in a good many other things I deem more worthy. Again as a result of the best manner of judgment I have been able to develop. Just as you and everyone else does. Who knows best? Hard to say, but I've never believed men necessarily know what is best for women. History has demonstrated how this is not the case, and today's world still demonstrates this in fairly certain terms. What is it you think I see "only in the Muslim world?" I see what I see everywhere, and I excuse nothing regardless the religion, the color of one's skin, gender, the country or customs! No joke. No irony.

Why do you suggest such a thing? Because Muslim customs happens to be the focus here? This means I only see what I see among Muslims? Come on now...

I thought I answered the question well enough, but okay, here goes again more specifically as I've got to be signing off and moving onto other things now. How would I reply "to the Spanish and Arab women telling you what to do in your society what do they think is right in their society?"

Sorry, as I always say with these sorts of general questions, we need specifics. What is the Spanish or Muslim women telling me to do? Go topless on a public beach. No problem. Wear a Burka? No thanks.

Is this a trick question?

I'm not telling anyone what to do in any case. At least understand this simple fact.
If you have the freedom and choice to say "No Thanks" to Muslim women asking you to wear Burka - then - they also have an equal right to say "No Thanks" to YOU when you suggest that to express their freedom, they should take off the Burka.
Isn't that simple enough to understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
87,949 posts, read 83,773,798 times
Reputation: 114129
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
If you have the freedom and choice to say "No Thanks" to Muslim women asking you to wear Burka - then - they also have an equal right to say "No Thanks" to YOU when you suggest that to express their freedom, they should take off the Burka.
Isn't that simple enough to understand?
While the concept of what you say is sound, the idea of a Muslim woman asking a man to wear a burka is a little silly to use as the example. That would not happen.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 06:04 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,583 posts, read 15,502,808 times
Reputation: 10819
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Religiously morality vs man made morality.
There is some common ground to it but the biggest difference is, the fundamentals of religious morality tend to say constant while man made morality not only changes over time, it also differs from society to society.

Take for example, theft - which is morally wrong - both in religious morality and in man made morality. Both religion and man laws are in place to stop it.

Religious morality did not change but man made morality did.
We saw it recently in California where a theft of under $950 is not a crime or punishable by law any more. You may thump your chest that this is a great sign of progression as we evolve - and so does our morality. But looting scenes in the retail store pose a different picture.
California DID NOT change their law to remove theft from the criminal code. What they did was to reclassify theft under $950 as a misdemeanor rather than a felony as it had been.

You should have checked your facts (or lack of same).

Incidentally, many religions have changed their standards about what is moral. A number of religions once considered slavery moral, but they no longer do. Many once considered capital punishment good and proper, but most civilized societies no longer execute prisoners.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 06:18 PM
 
6,115 posts, read 3,046,487 times
Reputation: 2405
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
California DID NOT change their law to remove theft from the criminal code. What they did was to reclassify theft under $950 as a misdemeanor rather than a felony as it had been.

You should have checked your facts (or lack of same).

Incidentally, many religions have changed their standards about what is moral. A number of religions once considered slavery moral, but they no longer do. Many once considered capital punishment good and proper, but most civilized societies no longer execute prisoners.
Yes, we can sugarcoat it as much as we like but the change happened and the looting scenes showed us progression and signs of being a civilized society. Didn’t it?


And which many religions you talking about?
The religion I chose to believe in, still says it in black n white - eye for an eye. And THAT’S justice.
Only the immediate family members of the deceased have a right to forgive or opt out for a lessor punishment for the convicted killer - not you and I or anyone else. Again, THAT’S common sense and justice IMO.
This religious guideline hasn’t changed for centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 06:38 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,583 posts, read 15,502,808 times
Reputation: 10819
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Yes, we can sugarcoat it as much as we like but the change happened and the looting scenes showed us progression and signs of being a civilized society. Didn’t it?


And which many religions you talking about?
The religion I chose to believe in, still says it in black n white - eye for an eye. And THAT’S justice.
Only the immediate family members of the deceased have a right to forgive or opt out for a lessor punishment for the convicted killer - not you and I or anyone else. Again, THAT’S common sense and justice IMO.
This religious guideline hasn’t changed for centuries.
I'm not sugarcoating anything. You incorrectly said that California had decriminalized theft. It didn't do that.

Your religion isn't the only one. Nor is it the only one discussed in this forum. In most civilized societies, crimes are prosecuted by the state. The family does not normally have the authority to forgive crimes.

That you think it is OK to kill people tells me something about you. I'll tell you something about me. I don't think it is ever OK to kill another human being. For any reason. Period. End of story.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2023, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,716 posts, read 13,262,632 times
Reputation: 9708
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals View Post
Religiously morality vs man made morality.
There is some common ground to it but the biggest difference is, the fundamentals of religious morality tend to say constant while man made morality not only changes over time, it also differs from society to society.

Take for example, theft - which is morally wrong - both in religious morality and in man made morality. Both religion and man laws are in place to stop it.

Religious morality did not change but man made morality did.
We saw it recently in California where a theft of under $950 is not a crime or punishable by law any more. You may thump your chest that this is a great sign of progression as we evolve - and so does our morality. But looting scenes in the retail store pose a different picture.
You really should check your facts because if that bit of misinformation is the best you can do to illustrate the devolution of secular law, you must be pretty desperate.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-160551360299

Thefts < $950 are misdemeanors rather than felonies, but they are still punishable. It does seem to me that petty theft being a felony is a bit harsh, and apparently California voters agreed.

IIRC the Bible just says to amputate the hand of a thief ... perhaps you'd prefer that?

As I pointed out and you conveniently ignored, religious rules indeed do change. The specific example I gave was that the Mormon church abandoned polygamy as a value / teaching / rule. Another is that Christian fundamentalists in the 1920s preached against the evils of radio, then found motion pictures, and eventually television, to be greater evils, and now they indulge all three without a thought. They used to decry skirts above the ankles, now with few exceptions you can't tell evangelical women apart from anyone else by how they dress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top