'Comparative Religion'

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Do you recall where I discussed how freeway driving habits were covered in the Bible?

does that have something to do with the plastic dashboard jesus?

[Rían]

LOL!!
No, you twit!

But it DOES have something to do with your question "or, are there certain situations that simply are not covered in a biblical sense... how do you arrive at these decisions?"

I'll have to search and see if I can find it....

[Rían]

AH, here they are (thank goodness for search!)

here and here

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
So if society comes around to thinking that drawing lots to pick a person to be tortured in an arena for people to watch is a good thing, that's OK with you, since society determines morals?

i've addressed this before... society determines morals because they are good for society... not arbitrarily

your example would be like me saying "if the bible said you must sacrifice your first child at the age of five, would you do it?"

to which you'd say "NO!"... i hope

and then add something like "and it would never say it in the first place"

which is the point... torturing people in the arena is not good for society as a whole... so it would never be determined to be 'moral' by society... it might be imposed by an authoritarian figure upon a society, but it would not hold water in a true democracy

which is why i stay way from any method of morality which depends upon the pov of and single individual or group of individuals and prefer the ones that make sense to all people, irregardless of religion or nationality

What I observe around me confirms again and again that the Biblical worldview is correct - uncannily so sometimes! So it is logical for me to go by what it says, even in the areas that are not as black and white. I really can't think of any Biblical area that does not make logical sense to me - the Bible is amazingly cohesive. And as I said, if the Christian worldview is correct, then one can see how homosexuality is harmful.

and i would say that the bible's success, and the success of many alternate religious texts is that they get so much right, and very little wrong... they are compelling books on philosophy... the problem arises when one loses the ability to even consider that some small part of them might be erroneous... or deterimental to the cultural well-being in our time

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
i've addressed this before... society determines morals because they are good for society... not arbitrarily

I just haven't had the energy to address this - I guess it's the summertime lazies ... but let me try to get across my point, which I apparently haven't successfully done yet!

I'm going to introduce my imaginary atheistic friend, RÃ*anna

(Now I don't mean AT ALL to insult anyone - I just want to introduce some thoughts I've had and an area where I see a LOGICAL flaw in atheistic thinking, and I'm going to use the imaginary RÃ*anna to illustrate this in posts where I talk about an atheistic worldview.)

Now we have the following observation which we both agree takes place in the real world - and I'll even use your wording - "society determines morals because they are good for society... not arbitrarily."

We both agree that this statement is true (well, I do, and I assume you do, too, because you said it! )

Now let's examine this observable fact in the light of 2 worldviews and see which one is the better logical fit".

In the Christian worldview, it is stated that God places his basic moral laws into the heart of every person. Thus it is a logical deduction that we find the concept of morality to exist, including the idea of a conscience or inner voice telling us that things are "right" or "wrong", and that morality is basically the same all over the world, and that societies will have the basic concept that it is "right" to act for the good of people.

And this is what we both observe - in your words, "society determines morals because they are good for society... not arbitrarily."

Do you agree that my deduction, based on the Christian worldview, is logically consistent, and fits with what we see in society?

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by RÃ*an

So if society comes around to thinking that drawing lots to pick a person to be tortured in an arena for people to watch is a good thing, that's OK with you, since society determines morals?
[/B]

Like...roman Gladiators...?

[Rían]

yeah, I suppose so - I got the creeps when I visited the Colosseum, altho it was a v. cool-looking building - they did some really sick things there

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
In the Christian worldview, it is stated that God places his basic moral laws into the heart of every person. Thus it is a logical deduction that we find the concept of morality to exist, including the idea of a conscience or inner voice telling us that things are "right" or "wrong", and that morality is basically the same all over the world, and that societies will have the basic concept that it is "right" to act for the good of people.

And this is what we both observe - in your words, "society determines morals because they are good for society... not arbitrarily."

Do you agree that my deduction, based on the Christian worldview, is logically consistent, and fits with what we see in society?

not really, what is right and wrong has changed drastically over time... in part because what is good for society has changed over time

for example, two thousand years ago, almost without exception, most females spent their entire existance taking care of the home and the family, while males did the 'providing' (hunting, physical work)... this was the 'morally correct role' for men and women for most of recorded history, and was observed as almost universally so until the last 100, and especially 50 or so years

the main reason for this... until recently the jobs of both caretaker and provider were full-time jobs... and by this i don't mean 40-hour, i mean basically one's entire existance... and the sexes fell into the roles that suited them best... women in the home, due in large part to their connection with childbirth and care, and men in the field, due to their physical attributes... sure there were exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions... a statement like 'the woman's place is in the home' was morally correct for most people, simple because it made sense

jump to the twentieth century, and technological advances slowly made both care of the home and providing much less life-consuming professions... and other changes made it much easier for either the male or the female to fill either role... thus the statement 'the woman's place is in the home' has lost it's moral value... and, in fact, is even seen as immoral by many people in today's world

the christian worldview does not take this flexibility into account

[Rían]

by brownie
not really, what is right and wrong has changed drastically over time... in part because what is good for society has changed over time

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, because your example doesn't fit what I'm talking about. Note that I said "BASIC moral laws" and morality is "BASICALLY" the same all over the world. I'm talkin' the main ones - like murder, stealing, lying, faithfulness to someone you've given a vow to, things like that - basically, the human relational part of the 10 commandments. And they are indeed the BASE of how cultures work. And how the underlying morals will appear in cultures can look different, but upon examination, you can see the BASE morals are the same.

Cultural changes can come and go, but the BASIC moral values are still the same. And even in the example you've given, the BASIC moral value of taking care of your child is still strongly in place. And anyway, altho people may TALK about dual-career couples working at work and at home equally, the FACT is that in dual-career couples, women still tend to do much more of the work at home. And also, that the trend is reversing, and more women are choosing to stay home again. And that we, as a society, despise and prosecute "deadbeat dads" who DON'T take care of the children they helped bring into the world, and who usually end up with the MOM.

And the Bible doesn't say anywhere that "Dads shall go away from home to work, and Moms shall stay at home to raise the kids.", anyway. It DOES talk about other things from which one can infer that this is the best type of set-up, but really, that doesn't enter into this particular issue. I'm talking about the major BASIC moral values that I listed above, and even more importantly, the existence of a conscience, and the existence of the concept of "right" and "wrong", and that societies will have the notion that it's "good" and "right" to act for the best of society.

Do you (or anyone else) agree with my assessment now?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Do you (or anyone else) agree with my assessment now?

if we're talking the ten commandments... you see variation too... 'thou shalt not kill' has been interpreted very differently throughout time... even today some catholics see it as an absolute condemnation on killing, while other christians are willing to make exceptions if 'the reasoning is good' (i.e. self-defense, war, capital punishment)... exceptions that i do not believe are spelled out in the bible, though i may be wrong

so again, morals, even among the religious, are extremely relative... even on basic points

[Rían]

I disagree - but before I explain, could I please ask everyone involved in this discussion to NOT try to DEFEND their position, in terms of "this is what I think and I'm going to refute anything that's against it" - but rather to come to the discussion from a neutral position and EVALUATE things honesty and without bias. When someone posts something, really think about it in an unbiased manner and see if the person has a valid point. I hate "debates", because they're about "winning", as opposed to learning, and I don't want this discussion to be a debate.

Now that said, I disagree with your point - or more accurately, really, I think I'm still not communicating MY point effectively, because your example doesn't address the point I'm trying to get across (sorry it's taking me so long to say exactly what I mean, and your posts have helped me to see where I didn't express things well).

Yes, I agree with you that the details of killing have been different among different people - but again, I'm not talking "details". Even in the example you gave, there is NO group that thinks killing is not an extremely grave thing (whoops, unintentional pun - "grave"!) that must be given serious consideration, and that killing just for the "fun" of it, or for selfish personal gain (as opposed to capital punishment) is not wrong.

Agreed? or do you see other objections?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
... while other christians are willing to make exceptions if 'the reasoning is good' (i.e. self-defense, war, capital punishment)... exceptions that i do not believe are spelled out in the bible, though i may be wrong

Yes, they are spelled out in the Bible - at least in the Old Testament, which is why they are open to various viewpoints, because Christians are not "under" the laws of the OT, they are under the NT (which is actually "tougher" in many areas, BTW! It equates being angry with someone to murder because it's the same heart intent).

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
if we're talking the ten commandments... you see variation too... 'thou shalt not kill' has been interpreted very differently throughout time...

IIRC, the Hebrew word used there is most accurately translated 'murder'.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
IIRC, the Hebrew word used there is most accurately translated 'murder'.

Yes - if you take the passage in context, it's pretty plain that it's murder (IOW, killing for selfish gain).

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes - if you take the passage in context, it's pretty plain that it's murder (IOW, killing for selfish gain).

that would still leave war in a somewhat gray area

can you give me an example other than killing, since it is a rather charged subject, that would fall into the 'universal moral' category... as i tried to do with male/female roles in society?

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownie
can you give me an example other than killing, since it is a rather charged subject, that would fall into the 'universal moral' category... as i tried to do with male/female roles in society?

yes, here:

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I'm talkin' the main ones - like murder, stealing, lying, faithfulness to someone you've given a vow to, things like that - basically, the human relational part of the 10 commandments.

[brownjenkins]

lying is a good one... how does the bible present it's morals on this issue?

[Rían]

For the purposes of simplifying the discussion - basically, it's wrong, but there are a few exceptions in extraordinary circumstances (like when the Hebrew midwives lied - they were commanded by Pharaoh to kill any baby boy upon delivery, but the Bible said basically that they honored God above Pharaoh and didn't obey this command, so when Pharaoh asked why the baby boys were not being killed, they lied to Pharaoh and said that the Hebrew women were more vigorous than Egyptian women and gave birth before the midwives could get there. Kind of like hiding a Jew in Nazi Germany - in extraordinary circumstances, where the lying is of no gain to yourself, and you would prob. even get killed if the lie is found out.)

So would you agree that altho there are various detail differences, that lying itself, for pure personal gain and at a grievous expense to a valued person, is basically considered wrong throughout the world? I'm not asking if it's DONE or not; just if it's thought WRONG.

[brownjenkins]

yes... most see it as wrong... and most do it anyway

though i wouldn't go so far as to say 'where the lying is of no gain to yourself'... even in your pharaoh example, the hebrews were acting to save the lives of their own (self interest)... while the pharaoh's command itself was intended to save his own rule, and possibly his life

so this story does not really say that lying is wrong... in fact, it says that lying is okay if it is in your own self-interest

lying always involves self interest... the question is whether it is justifiable or not in terms of a greater good... which again, is relative

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
yes... most see it as wrong... and most do it anyway

The "see it as wrong" part is the important part, IMO.

though i wouldn't go so far as to say 'where the lying is of no gain to yourself'... even in your pharaoh example, the hebrews were acting to save the lives of their own (self interest)...

I strongly disagree with this! I don't think preventing genocide is a selfish act. Do you really see it as one? Yes, the midwives were Hebrew, and a side-effect was that their own race would be saved, but genocide is WRONG, and that was their motive, IMO.

so this story does not really say that lying is wrong... in fact, it says that lying is okay if it is in your own self-interest

Again, I strongly disagree. Taken as a whole, which is as it should be, the Bible says very strongly that lying is wrong. In fact, there's a story in the NT where some Christians in the early church are selling property and bringing the proceeds to the apostles to give to the poor. A married couple decide to do this, and then keep some back (which was certainly their perogative, and not wrong at this point), and then LIE and say they brought the WHOLE amount (which was WRONG and certainly served no one's purpose but theirs! God tends to really dislike hypocrisy...) and they are struck dead.

The number of exceptions abaout lying can be counted on one hand - and they always involve things like preventing genocide.

lying always involves self interest...

Well, most of the lying that goes on involves self-interest, but that type isn't right.