God wants different religions

[atanu]

God wants different religions to exist. God wants all human to live in peace with each other. God want us to learn to be kind to each other no matter what religion a person believes in. God has no spesific religion. God is behind different religions

Any thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?

Agree.

 

[Ella S.]

Well humans have the ability to be objective about what's often considered subjective. Objective subjectivity. If a person examines their desires, motivations, and intentions objectively they will come across moral facts about values, and virtues. They'll come to know that honesty has moral worth, and deceit is dangerous. They'll come to know that murder is robbing innocent life. They might arrive at the consideration of what's deserved and things that are undeserving. We all make value judgments, and all value judgments bring about outcomes that are either beneficial, neutral, or damaging to those involved, and at large beyond that.

Actions, or inactions both tell a moral story. We have the ability to assess those things if we are objectively about the truth of those things as we deserve to know it.

People come to realize there is a price to pay for acting falsely toward honest motives. Society pays a price.

Actions, and inactions can often reveal character. And the integrity of society depends upon honest dealings. So it becomes necessary to protect the public, and private honesty, and to defend against malicious falsehoods, and bad dealings.

Moral empiricism is about the study of our own motives and actions and the results of those things and how they affect society.

People lose sight of the value of truthfulness, and accountability. People think that they have no accountability to society. They use their moral relativism to cheat, deceive, and lie as it seems to suit themselves without taking into account the larger consequences.

People come to realize there is a common good, and a right to private good through moral empiricism. People come to realize what's a human right, and what is not.

Everyone employs moral empiricism; the study of motives, desires, actions, inactions and the results they give to not only themselves but to society.

So there's a truth about these things that can't be avoided. If society has the wrong values then everybody pays. So moral empiricism is vitally important.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you take any two people and ask them moral questions, eventually they will come to a disagreement on something. There is no intersubjective agreement on morality.

Even if there were, you would still only have feelings and nothing empirical.

I think you're projecting your own emotions onto others.

 

[osgart]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you take any two people and ask them moral questions, eventually they will come to a disagreement on something. There is no intersubjective agreement on morality.

Even if there were, you would still only have feelings and nothing empirical.

I think you're projecting your own emotions onto others.

Emotions and feelings have nothing to do with it. If society chooses to disregard moral facts they do so at their own peril. Intersubjective agreement isn't anything. It's having agreement objectively about subjective matters. People do that all the time. Going by emotions and feelings leads people down blind alleys.

You make it sound like it's all preferences, tastes, and opinions and that there is no such thing as the common good. Without moral facts then there are no moral standards, and criminal actions are easily accepted because then people only care about what they want, and disregard others. I don't buy that rubbish.

Anything goes is not morality.

 

[alypius]

God wants different religions to exist.

What reasons are there to support this claim?

 

[ecco]

Protestants kill Catholics and Sunnis kill Shiites and Christians kill Muslims. Is that why god gave different religions, so that people would have another reason to hate and kill each other?

They'll find a way to hate and kill each other, even without religion. Politics seem to make a fine substitute as well.

You missed the point. Religious killing is not a substitute. It is an additional reason.

 

[Ella S.]

Emotions and feelings have nothing to do with it. If society chooses to disregard moral facts they do so at their own peril. Intersubjective agreement isn't anything. It's having agreement objectively about subjective matters. People do that all the time. Going by emotions and feelings leads people down blind alleys.

You make it sound like it's all preferences, tastes, and opinions and that there is no such thing as the common good. Without moral facts then there are no moral standards, and criminal actions are easily accepted because then people only care about what they want, and disregard others. I don't buy that rubbish.

Anything goes is not morality.

But you're saying that moral facts are determined by what we feel in our heart? If that's not how they're determined, then what is the evidence that we "ought" to do one thing over another?

 

[JustGeorge]

You missed the point. Religious killing is not a substitute. It is an additional reason.

Honestly, I think its a substitute. People who would kill will find a reason to kill. They just use religion(or something else) as a mask for their anger/hatred/fear.

 

[ecco]

Without moral facts

Which moral facts are you referring to?

 

[osgart]

That murder is wrong.
That truthfulness is good.
That lying to harm someone is wrong.
Honesty is necessary to have civil society.
It's right to defend honesty in society.

It's odd to me that people can see no cause and effect in their choice of morality.

Vices undermine public trust.
Virtues promote well being.

Those are facts.

 

[greenboy21x]

God wants different religions to exist. God wants all human to live in peace with each other. God want us to learn to be kind to each other no matter what religion a person believes in. God has no spesific religion. God is behind different religions

Any thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?

Did God tell you that? What about the God(s) that say worship none except me? Are they lying? Sorry but, your posts has 0 logic.

 

[osgart]

But you're saying that moral facts are determined by what we feel in our heart? If that's not how they're determined, then what is the evidence that we "ought" to do one thing over another?

What we feel in our hearts manifests itself in reality through our actions, and inactions. There are causes that manifest effects in society due to what motivates people morally.

We ought not murder someone because we ourselves do not want to be murdered, and murder creates an environment that undermines trust, and well being. Murder is also repugnant.

Morality is the consideration wise people have when considering the kind of relationships they desire to be in.

Good relationships are impossible to have without moral honesty.

If these things are not evident to you than I'm afraid you are just blind to reality and nothing further can be said.

People are often aware of their own morals and the causes and effects of those morals.

People also get caught in lies. People get convicted of real crimes. All due to evidence.

People do good things as well and often there is evidence for those things.

No one benefits from nor enjoys being abused or lied to. That's an evident moral fact.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....... Too many religious believers seem to think their religion will be the one that will predominate in the future and/or as being 'the truth'. Can't all be so, surely?

Yipes, surely can't all be so, but why else would a person belong to a religion unless they believed it was the right one ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's not empirical; what's "in the heart" is subjective feeling. Could you please give me empirical evidence?

I find at Jeremiah 17:9 that the 'heart' is treacherous.
Subjective to feelings.
Before we do something the 'heart' urges us to do something, and after we do it then the ' heart' gives us all the reasons why we should Not have done what we did in the first place.
Thus, to me we need the Bible as written evidence, as a written guide as a car manual gives guidance for a car.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....... People who would kill will find a reason to kill. They just use religion(or something else) as a mask for their anger/hatred/fear.

Political can use religion.
For example: false clergy have often used the pulpit as a recruiting station for the political so that parents will send their sons off to the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God which it is Not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yipes, surely can't all be so, but why else would a person belong to a religion unless they believed it was the right one ?

Perhaps fitted their thinking and feelings? Not noticed the many who do change religions or have done so? But many, even here, and no doubt reflected worldwide, do think their religion is the one true belief and expect such to fan out as the doctrine tells them. Religious believers do seem to be a mix as to how fiercely they hold onto their beliefs. A spectrum perhaps, as much as religious beliefs are a spectrum too.

 

[JustGeorge]

Political can use religion.
For example: false clergy have often used the pulpit as a recruiting station for the political so that parents will send their sons off to the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God which it is Not.

Yup. This happens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God wants different religions to exist. God wants all human to live in peace with each other.

Then God is an idiot.
Different religions will cause division.

If I as an overlord of the milky way would want humans to live in peace, the last thing I would do is give them different incompatible and mutually exclusive religions.

Does it guarantee war and conflict? maybe not.
But if "peace" is the goal here, then certainly feeding into tribalism by dividing the population by giving them several incompatible worldviews, most certainly will not help attaining that goal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is only because the people who know truth in this time are being selfish, they shy away from forbidding evil and commanding to good and speaking the truth and enjoining to hold on to it.

That's completely backwards and exposes that you don't have an actual grasp of what morality is all about.

"forbidding evil" and "commanding good" will result in mindless robotic drones simply doing what they are told. That's not acting morally. That's just being obedient.

For people to act morally, they need to be able to CHOOSE between a moral and an immoral path.
Off course, not all evils can stay permissible in a society or it would end in chaos and misery.

But consider a "law" that states that citizens are obligated by law to donate 10% of their income to charity.
Is me giving 10% to charity then a "moral act"?

I say NO, it most definitely is NOT.
It would only be a moral act if I also had the option of NOT giving anything to charity and then consciously decide to give anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Material evolution or should I say Material technology hinder humans today in spiritual growth ( in my understanding) this is why I said spiritual evolvement is lacking today

What do you mean exactly with "spiritual evolvement"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed as war is not a foundation of any Faith.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.
The Viking gods Thor and Odin seemed to be quite big on battle and more specifically, death on the battle field with the axe in your hand. Which would grant you access to the Great Halls in Whalhalla where you can dine with the gods and do battle for eternity between the feasts.

Roman gods didn't seem to mind battle and war either.