Morality...........

In the Biblical Hebrew it translates to Thou Shall Not Murder -- they were using the Slavic and Germany (Rhineland ) to translate when they came up with the shall not kill !!

JMHO

 

Then I have a question about Evangelical Christians...perhaps Pentecostals specifically (since they were on the hot-seat recently) and their belief in Biblical inerrancy.

To paraphrase, these people believe that regardless of translation errors, through divine intervention, the monks rendered translations that were near enough to the original that the translations were considered the word of God too. (And I'm not challenging your post...I'm very curious about this topic)

I've always figured that back in the day...from Seth to Abraham to Isaac to Moses, you're looking at a couple thousand years there. Additionally, there probably weren't too many books floating around . So, all of the scripture during this time would've really been oral history.

We all know that if we tell someone a story, then have that story told from one person to the next, we're going to end up with a different story.

My point is that I just don't see how rational people could consider the King James version of the Bible to be without errors/omissions/embellishments. I think it is impossible for humans with their "good intentions" not to tweak things here and there in order to "clarify" things.

Yes, I guess my theory doesn't hold water if you (rhetorical) come back at me and say "God guided their hand, so whatever they wrote must be the original words of God."

Anyway...I appreciate the posts...they make me think. ....keeps the Alzheimer's at bay.

 

Guit_fishN, your thoughts on Biblical Inerrancy mirror mine, and the problem created by the concept of Biblical Inerrancy was initially, years ago, the reason that I began to question the faith that I once had in Christianity. If I had been raised in a Christian denomination that did not embrace Biblical Inerrancy, I would have probably never questioned my faith, and would probably be a Christian today.

I, like our friend Bluenote, was raised in an evangelical, fundamentalist, southern church. His was Pentacostal, mine was Baptist; but the death grip on Biblical Inerrancy was something that both of our churches had in common. It was actually my attempt to better understand my faith, the teachings of my church, and the Bible, that led me to become an agnostic. I could not reconcile my belief in Biblical Inerrancy with the obvious errors and contradictions that I encountered in the Bible.

I found myself in a state of cognitive dissonance - the teachings of my church conflicted with what my reason told me was true. I couldn't continue to embrace both - either my faith, or my reason, had to be subdued or disposed of. I chose to follow my reason.

I know that Minuteman made a point, and a good point it was, that faith and religion is not the same thing; and while I agree with that basic assertion, I would argue that ones faith is generally greatly colored by the particular set of Christian teachings that one is exposed to. Both the Baptist and the Catholic may share a basic faith in God, but the particular details of that faith will vary. Religious faith goes well beyond the belief in a supreme being.

Actually, my own experience with turning my back on the religious teachings that I was raised with is one reason that I feel that making too strong a connection between Christianity (or any other religion) and ones sense of morality is a mistake. If a person's entire moral base is wrapped up in their religious beliefs, and they walk away from those beliefs, what happens to their moral base?

For a lot of people, and I am not including everyone in this statement, basing their sense of morality on the Church is an easy way out. You don't have to think for yourself, if the Church tells you what is right and what is wrong. You don't have to wrestle with such issues as abortion, or gay marriage. You just look to your pulpit, and say "amen." They think whatever they are told to think, by their Bible or their pastor. That just isn't me.

When my wife and I adopted our son, my brother-in-law made the comment, "Well, I guess you guys will have to start going to church now." I raised an eyebrow and asked "why", and he said, "You have a child to raise now. Where else is he going to learn right from wrong?"

I run into that attitude quite a lot, and the idea that I can't teach my child right from wrong without the Bible or the Church is something that still makes me smile.

I understand Bluenote's anger. He perhaps is not dealing with it very well, and his personal attacks on others indicates that there is a much larger issue beyond his religious opinions at work; but I get the source of his anger. I live in the Bible Belt, and my entire family are Christian Fundamentalists. Identifying yourself as agnostic is difficult, and immediately opens you up to unending attacks and derision. Of course, if you attack Christianity, you are an atheist, or a communist; or perhaps you've just hardened your heart to God. They'll pray for you.

Anyone who identifies themselves as agnostic, and who had a religious background, traveled a long, hard road to get to where they are. They had to question everything that they believed in, and often had to deal with the censure of their family and friends, who still embraced their former religion. To treat these people condescendingly and to suggest that they just don't understand, or else they would be on the Christianity band wagon, is a slap in the face. It isn't that they don't understand, it is that they perhaps understand too well. They have generally spent a long time answering some hard questions and accepting some personal truths that are too difficult for many to swallow.

Does morality come from Christianity? No. Does it come from faith in a creator? No. Morality is a social construct which allows people to interact in a community. Right and wrong? That is a different question, and I agree that a sense of right and wrong is innate. Try giving a piece of candy to one small child, and not to another, and that particular proposition can be proven quickly. Children understand right and wrong and fairness before they can even walk. Morality has to be taught.

 

If the question becomes is there a god, I pose a second. How did every society that has ever existed come up with religion and a god or gods with out being taught by others?

Is it a mental conditions programmed genetically, or is it gods will ?

 

How did most societies, geographically separated by thousands of miles, come up with the bow and arrow? How did the Egyptians and the Mayans both come up with the pyramid?

Many sects within the world's religions - Sufism in Islam, and Kabalism in Judaism, some Gnostics in Christianity, to name a few - believe that inside each individual resides a spark of God, that this spark is why all societies create a code of ethics, and why all societies develop some sort of religious institution. Maybe that "spark" is what some of us call reason; what separates us from the beasts of the field.

I think that the question of why all societies developed some form of religious belief can be answered by examining the human condition in a hunter-gatherer society. Life was hard, real hard. You didn't have science to explain weather patterns to you. Storms, floods, droughts had a good chance of killing you, and these powerful events must have come from somewhere; even the brain of early man was catching onto "cause and effect."

"Somebody must have created this storm, and it must have been a big, powerful somebody. I can't see this guy, but I sure would like to have him on my side. I wonder what I could do to convince him that I'm one of the good guys, so that maybe he'll ease up with these lightening bolts? Maybe I could prostrate myself and show him that I am no threat to him. Maybe I could offer him a gift, but what do you give someone who has everything? How about the gift being my sacrifice? Even if this animal isn't a big deal to him, he'll respect the fact that it is a big deal to me, and I'll offer it up in sacrifice."

On a more simple and personal level, why do most children invent an imaginary friend? They want someone to share their troubles, and their joys with; but this someone is beyond their parents' control. He or she doesn't have to take a bath, they don't have to pick up their room, they aren't under the same stress that small children feel. Toddlers are under a great deal of stress, because they aren't in control of very much of their day to day lives. Parents exert almost God-like influence on their lives. An imaginary friend gives them an outlet; someone to talk to when life is getting them down.

I think that the stress that early societies were under, fighting for their very survival, created the concept of God. These people needed hope, they needed to believe that on some level they could control forces that were otherwise out of their control. Similar to a lot of soldiers "finding religion" in the foxholes. You put somebody underneath enough stress, and they start to squirm, and look for a way out. They look for a way to survive the unsurvivable. They often look to "God" whoever, or whatever, he may represent to them.

I myself am in total awe of the power and driving force that created the universe, the earth, and every living plant and animal on this world of ours. I don't know what to call that force; some call it by the name of one god or another, some separate this force into several gods, and some call this force "Mother Nature." Whatever it is called, whatever its nature is, and whatever its intentions were, the product of its works is awe inspiring. I suspect that early man felt some of that sense of awe as well. You gotta tip your hat, or bow your head, to the clockmaker.

 

Part of the answer might be that we don't wonder about much anymore.

When is the last time you spent looking up at the stars at night...or just looked up in general? I used to do this a lot when I was smarter. Now I don't...I'm too tired or busy (self-absorbed?)

Back in the day of Moses, Abraham....Seth, there wasn't much knowledge ... and no books. So, how did pre-historical societies explain things? I guess there are three ways:

1. through divine intervention, relevant knowledge was revealed
2. experimentation / trial-error
3. they made $h!t up

I'm guessing D: all of the above

So, when you have disasters like a volcano, earthquake, or bad storm, without knowledge of weather, how do you explain something like that? You can't explain the moon at night...it's there sometimes....sometimes it's gone....why?

To add to your question: why does every society come up with monsters? Does this lend support to the idea that boogey-men exist.

The human mind....excellent at making stuff up.

 

1-2-3-D? You count funny...



I can resist many things...temptation is not one of them...

 

It's just an expression. Letters...numbers, doesn't matter. "D - All of the above" is just a way to say everything.

Urban Dictionary: D. all of the above

But, I appreciate your eye for details.

 

Thanks Ghrit. I consider all in here my friends, I realize with all relaitionships its can at times be necessary to step back. I love debt and conversations even on touchy subjects, however not at the expense of me and every one else looking bad. Sometimes its eaiser to agree to diaagree than to spoil our online friendships.


The answer to my question is a life long quest to find out if theres no God where do morals come from?

So to explain, I believe that the Earth with Humans is a divine plan from a divine creator. Simply put someone greator than us.

The alternartive is the the world was a accident, and somehow humans evolved from, well who knows. Darwins theory is survival of the fittest, witch initself has no morals. So if you believe in survival of the fittest where do your moral standerds come from?

Special thanks to jim2 for support.

 

I believe this...in a way. I think there's some thing greater that we don't understand...a higher power--I have faith in that. I don't think it's a person though. This is very similar to weak agnosticism.

Infanticide was a morally acceptable way of "disposing of" deformed or unwanted children since recorded history. Isn't this a form of survival of the fittest?

Human sacrifice...practiced in many ancient cultures. Mayans and Aztecs were quite brutal. I don't think anyone would consider them "moral" today. Gladiators were basically sacrificed for the pleasure of the masses. Definitely not "moral" by today's standards. All of this existed while the people worshiped deities in some fashion. So here, I could make the argument that religions do not have common mala in se crimes or taboos. Put another way, if God divinely worked through humans to establish moral behavior, you would expect all religions to have a common basic rulebook to define what is moral.

Speaking of evolution: the evolution of stars says that the sun will become a red giant in about 5 billion years. Yes, this is a very long time, but, if humans don't manage to blow ourselves up first and made it that long, it would all be for nothing. All species will become extinct at that time. Personally, I don't think humans will last that long (unless we conquer space travel), but in a few blinks of the solar eye, our planet may not even be here and if it is, it will be lifeless. Real buzz-kill huh.

 

For me I don't believe morals are defined by religion. My personal belief is that since religion is man made it inherently is flawed. I have had my faith hit rock bottom many times before but I always seem to start praying to a higher power again. That is faith. You can be a man of faith and not be a man of religion. My morals were defined by my family and friends. As I have gotten older my morals have been more defined by my own feelings. I pose a simple question "Is it more immoral to tell a lie and not hurt someone or is it more immoral to tell the truth and hurt someone." Morality can be a double edged sword, a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation.

 

Even more interesting to me is that without any contact whatsoever peoples all around the world developed religions that all share with slight differences the same core stories. My answer to this has always been and will always remain that religion is cultural and ancestral in nature. There isn't a right or a wrong, rather ancient peoples around the world all witnessed certain events and interpreted them in manners that made sense to them in the culture in which they lived.

 

Different cultures have in the past offered human sacrifices to the sun. Thankfully they no longer exists. Thatas just a small example of the crap that has and often contuniues. Its has nothing to do with whats Morality, and if your cool with human sacrifices being moral than this conversation is useless.

Thank God for Missionarys