Thread: Does the world need Relegion as a "moral code?"

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

So Christians follow no teachings in the OT, which are not repeated in the NT by Jesus. Surely there are many things in the OT God expects you to follow, that Jesus doesn't re mention in the NT. I thought Jesus said he wasn't there to change all of the old laws?

So really for a Christian, Jesus Christ is God, the original God in the OT, is not a deity in their eyes?

That's what it sounds like from what is being said here, i am confused..

He was predestined my the prophets in OT. Note I'am not saying it was predestined, but it is said he could have studied the OT, and strove to be the messiah. Christians believe in the trinity. God, Jesus, and the holy spirit. All in different forms. God came down as jesus, and his memory in you as the Holy Spirit.

predestined?, sorry that all sounded a bit confusing..

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

predestined?, sorry that all sounded a bit confusing..

How is this confusing..

He was predestined in the OT, and he came in 3 forms.. As easy as that. The prophets said God will come in human form. God being killed at the hand of the ones he created, his ultimate act of love. The philosophical view of it is that man will create evil, based on their ignorance. And that people can hate somebody who has never done anything wrong.

Originally Posted by skysaw

So it's impossible to trick someone into doing something they don't want to by misrepresenting facts? If that were the case, we'd have no use for the term "con-man."

I don't mean to be condescending, its just that people have a bad habit of not paying careful attention to what I said - claiming that I am saying 'orange' when I said 'apple'. For example, I thought you would understand that when I said no one that I was still referring to the adult.

religion is a set of beliefs, supported by faith. it does not revolve around facts.

someone hammering the bible at you can not be compared to someone misrepresenting the facts - because you should know, hopefully, that as a religion, it is faith based.

when religion 'misrepresents', it is their doctrine that they are 'misrepresenting'. that is, changing the bible and not telling people that they changed the bible. then, we can talk about manipulation by means of misrepresenting the 'facts'.

Originally Posted by juroara

someone hammering the bible at you can not be compared to someone misrepresenting the facts...

Oh, but it absolutely should be compared. The bible is chock full of falsehoods. Instilling the bible into a person is the very epitome of misrepresenting facts.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

So Christians follow no teachings in the OT, which are not repeated in the NT by Jesus. Surely there are many things in the OT God expects you to follow, that Jesus doesn't re mention in the NT. I thought Jesus said he wasn't there to change all of the old laws?

So really for a Christian, Jesus Christ is God, the original God in the OT, is not a deity in their eyes?

That's what it sounds like from what is being said here, i am confused..

some Christians follow the OT

some Christians follow the NT

some claim to follow both

others claim to follow neither

Christianity is diverse. How they approach the bible is diverse. Some see it as literal. Some see it as mystical.

it isn't right for a non Christian to tell a Christian, how they are supposed to approach their text - I mean that's like telling a protestant they are supposed to be catholic or a catholic they are supposed to be baptist. Who are we to tell anyone what they are supposed to believe? Christianity is diverse!!

normally, when an individual Christian says "I follow Jesus" he is generally making a statement "I do not follow the OT"

there are many reasons why a Christian would say this, and generally in this case, because he believes Jesus gave us 'new laws'.

yes there is a verse that Jesus upholds the old laws. but even here it is believed that doesn't mean old testament. he is meaning something else, as he generally does.

the original God in the OT was feared. HE WOULD SMITE YOU WITH A FURY WITH A VENGEANCE. Jesus showed a very different God. For those who claim to follow Jesus, and only Jesus and not the OT, Jesus shows a nearly polar opposite God. Making the understanding of God in the OT false and colored by the ego of man.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Oh, but it absolutely should be compared. The bible is chock full of falsehoods. Instilling the bible into a person is the very epitome of misrepresenting facts.

if your going to take it that way. I mean, when I read Greek mythology I certainly don't feel that way

ITS A RELIGION. and Christianity, is FAITH BASED.

there are many people today, who can casually read the bible and say "what a fun story! a good myth!" and you know what else? they can read it again without feeling like someone is forcing them to accept it as fact.

In the modern world, every modern child, who is apart of it, KNOWS that there are multiple religions. They KNOW these religions do not agree with each other. They KNOW each religion believes something different. They KNOW each religion is claiming to be right and the other wrong.

None of us here are in a backwards country being taught since birth to spill blood for God as a factual thing.

I am talking about modern people, modern children, modern teenagers, modern adults in the modern world. No one, no one, can force these people to believe that religion is a proven fact like biology or physics. They KNOW, that through history classes, OLDER religions are called...MYTH. And they know, should they dare to, they can say the same about the religions today.

Otherwise we would be saying that every child attending catholic school is a practicing devout catholic *AS IF!*

I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry when the modern contemporary man feels a need to victimize himself.

"Oh! the tragedy I changed my beliefs! oh the pain! pity me!"

For the rest of us who don't feel the need to victimize ourselves, were HAPPY to have changed our beliefs. H A P P Y.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, Mark does make a good point.

Pointy as a needle. Try not to poke yourself by responding to it.

The purpose of using religion as a moral code has nothing to do with morality existing independently from religion and has everything to do with attempting to standardize morality. All morality is subjective. All creatures have a personal moral code regardless of their exposure (or lack thereof) to religion. Unfortunately, many subjective moral codes stand in direct and extreme opposition with each other. The purpose of religious morality is to attempt to bring as many subjective moral codes under the standardized moral umbrella of the religion as possible. This is why all religions would like to be the one 'true' religion that would encompass all the Earth; because it would mean that everyone believed in the same basic moral standards.

So in short, from a global perspective; some form of religion is necessary for global morality. Think of it as an amalgamated majority standard.

Xagaria, your argument begs the question: can positive morality without religion exist? I say undoubtedly yes, of course. Thus we do not need religion for global morality. In fact, I would say absolute and obsolte terms of morality worsen universal morality.

As most if not all of you know I represent the "oposition", I do not however agree with them on this. Morals were not derived from religion, religion was derived from morals and the way people thought things should be in a perfect world where a god loved them. I sound like an agnostic at the moment but that will pass, is just that darn logic speaking. I know that God exsists but even if he did not people would still set up a code of ethics because without rules we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

As most if not all of you know I represent the "oposition", I do not however agree with them on this. Morals were not derived from religion, religion was derived from morals and the way people thought things should be in a perfect world where a god loved them. I sound like an agnostic at the moment but that will pass, is just that darn logic speaking. I know that God exists but even if he did not people would still set up a code of ethics because without rules we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.

I second.

It is always nice to see a fan of my work. You are a fan, at least enough of one to second my replies. Be warned, my replies are in danger of random discarghes of stupidity and ignorance.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

people would still set up a code of ethics because without rules we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.

That's funny that you would say that because experience seems to show the opposite. It's not like any proposed universal moral code has really ever done anything good, unless you count law in.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

As most if not all of you know I represent the "oposition", I do not however agree with them on this. Morals were not derived from religion, religion was derived from morals and the way people thought things should be in a perfect world where a god loved them. I sound like an agnostic at the moment but that will pass, is just that darn logic speaking. I know that God exsists but even if he did not people would still set up a code of ethics because without rules we would have long ago destroyed ourselves.

Sort of.

But you missed the hitch:

Basic Right/Wrong + Reason to follow that list (God) + Reward for following list (Afterlife) = Religion.

Originally Posted by StephenT

Of course. The Bible is like the law book of morality for humans. Sure, we could get some of them from parents and influences such as that at a young age, but when we get older, we need to turn to the Bible for how to live our life in a moral, Godly way.

Also, when I think about it, parents and other great influences of your early life probably get their morals from the Bible, so it all trickles down in the end.

People like killers, who highly lack in morality, were probably either deprived of the Bible, or are Atheists.

To sum it up, yes, without the Bible, this world of ours would be anarchistic and Godless.

In the Bible it says that God wrote his law upon mans heart. I dont know if this is true, but if you are going to speak about the Bible as being the source of morality, you should know about this passage.

My modern philosophy proffessor had us watch a fantastic conversation last week that has to do with this very subject and involves some of the most cutting edge psychological research. It is an online blog conversation btwn two philosophy proffs, one at Yale and one at UNC ...Absolutely fantastic research being done.

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9785

Originally Posted by avalonandon

http://www.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9785

I'd much rather read that. The left guy keeps breathing into the mic like the obese guy he is and the right one has an annoying voice and stupid eyebrows.

Originally Posted by Korittke

I'd much rather read that. The left guy keeps breathing into the mic like the obese guy he is and the right one has an annoying voice and stupid eyebrows.

Lol! I noticed that too and it bugged me until they started getting into the conversation deeply enough. I dont know if a transcript is available though. It truly is some fantastic information.

Originally Posted by wasup

Xagaria, your argument begs the question: can positive morality without religion exist? I say undoubtedly yes, of course. Thus we do not need religion for global morality. In fact, I would say absolute and obsolte terms of morality worsen universal morality.

I would agree; obsolete moral codes are detrimental to society. I said nothing about positive morality, as the concept of subjective morality makes the concepts of positive and negative meaningless in this context. What I am referring to is Standardized morality. As of right now, there are only two schools of thought that attempt to standardize behavior and morality, those being Religion and Philosophy; but these two spheres are over lapping and one could argue that they are different forms of the same thing. I would even go as far to say that the idea of philosophy itself originated in a religious context and the only difference the two have today is one is invoked by atheistic individuals in order to distance themselves from religious affiliation.

So what I'm saying is, there are systems for the standardization of morality that we do not call Religion, but essentially the differences lie mostly in the name.