• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Problems - The Root Cause

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad. In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.

For me, a secular humanist, what's interesting is why it was assumed that knowledge of good and evil was a bad thing - something that the kids had to be sheltered from. The serpent, who is cast as the enemy of man, is voiced as supporting it, and the deity, who is said to love man, as forbidding it. That's the opposite of my values. Knowledge of right and wrong is something humanists pursue through the application of reason to the intuitions of the conscience.

So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

Correct. You get to decide that for yourself. If you can't come up with your own set of moral values, there are plenty of isms that will be glad to do it for you, and you are free to choose one of those. Whatever you choose, you chose it.

We see the problem. There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos. This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

Once again, here's the humanist perspective: Faith IS the problem, not the solution. Accepting irrational moral dicta from the past causes disharmony, and repudiation of the methods of faith is the solution - critical thinking. Look at the disharmony in the States now caused by Christianity and its moral dicta regarding LGBTQ and abortion. And where do the answers come from? Humanism. Tolerance is a humanist value, not a Christian one. Freedom of (and from) religion is a humanist value, not a Christian one. Freedom of conscience is a humanist value, not a Christian one. Democracy is a humanist value, not a Christian one. These are all values that promote harmony through tolerance, all opposed by Christianity in its effort to impose a divisive moral system accepted by faith on a government and an unwilling people uninterested in Christian values wherever they diverge from their own.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them. They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad. This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

And I would reword this as when man chose to trade in reason for faith, was rebelling against religious systems that disesteem reason, constrain thought, and speak for unseen gods and their alleged sovereignty. That's what I did personally when I left Christianity. That's what the West did collectively with the Enlightenment. It's actually a good path to choose.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way?

No, that wouldn't be good. No religion that uses divine command theory and a holy book could come up with a moral code that outperforms the rational ethics of humanism. Do the faithful know their way? They may feel that they do, but what are their results? Religions that continually bifurcate and contradict one another.

Why? Because they are tethered to nothing but scripture and how one feels like interpreting it today. Humanism is tethered to empiricism - to observable results, to what produces the harmony they seek. That is why prohibition was reversed. Good intentions produced undesirable outcomes, and so reason was brought to bear. Religion can't do that. As a result, humanism evolves as unified philosophy. What works empirically is what is advocated for.

Isn't that why there is only one periodic table of the elements as opposed to tens of thousands of gods and religions? Only the former is grounded in evidence, reason, and observed results.

So, if it's one standard you seek, and one that produces desired results, look to reason applied to moral intuitions to provide it.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Uhhh
I don't know what percent want that.

The guy who assaulted me was a family.
man, had a good job.

He wasn't looking for a discussion and appeared to lack empathy.

No doubt there are bad actors. But I have to believe the good actors are in the majority.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Violence? What's that?
Peace? What's that?
Charity, equal opportunity, empathy, honesty? What are those?

According to some, those are viewed differently by different individuals. So your peace is not the next door neighbors' peace.
Hence the OP.

So what will you be discussing? How does that go?

When the inevitable conflicts arise between people, we basically have two approaches to resolve these conflicts:

- discussion
- violence.

I believe most people prefer discussion.

As for your other points, as I'm understanding you, your argument seems to be a sort of religiously oriented philosophical one. It sounds like you're saying that without "god's rule" there can be no agreed upon morals. Am I understanding you?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
When the inevitable conflicts arise between people, we basically have two approaches to resolve these conflicts:

- discussion
- violence.

I believe most people prefer discussion.

As for your other points, as I'm understanding you, your argument seems to be a sort of religiously oriented philosophical one. It sounds like you're saying that without "god's rule" there can be no agreed upon morals. Am I understanding you?
I'm not arguing it.
It is what we see, isn't it?
Are there agreed upon morals, or is it the case that people have different views regarding what's moral to them, and argue for those?

For example, if one set of persons think that peace is to be allowed to do what they want, and another disrupts their peace by telling them otherwise, or trying to prevent them, are they not defining peace and morality based on their views?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I though of this after a conversation, in which one person indicated that peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.
It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth.
That says to me, in other words, everything is determined by what we think or decide, individually.

This worldview really reminded me of the profound truth that was written centuries ago - the root cause of every problem on the face of the earth.
It starts in Genesis.

(Genesis 3:1-5)
1 Now the serpent was the most cautious of all the wild animals of the field that Jehovah God had made. So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” 2 At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. 3 But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” 4 At this the serpent said to the woman: “You certainly will not die. 5For God knows that in the very day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and bad.

(Genesis 3:22)
22Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . . .

There are various ideas on how these verses should be understood.
I appreciate the way they are understood by Jehovah's Witnesses... not because I am one, but because their understanding is in line with the context, and makes more sense, if we take the Bible as a complete book, inspired by God, as Paul and Jesus said.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was written in all the Scriptures about Himself.

In a nutshell, the understanding is that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was a real tree which God placed in the garden as a representation of his right as sovereign, to decide, or set the rules for his creation, as to what is good and bad.

In other words, there is only one set law or standard, on which to determine what is good, and what is bad. People do not decide that for themselves.
So for example, John Doe does not get to decide, X is good for me, and Y is bad for me, while Jane Doe is deciding X is bad for me, and Y is good for me.

We see the problem.
There is disharmony, disorder, disunity - even chaos.
This independence from God - the supreme law giver, is the root of all problems.

When Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and eat fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, they were really rebelling against God's sovereignty - his right to rule them, and determine good and bad for them.
They chose to decide for themselves what was good, and what was bad.
This was instigated by the original serpent - the Devil, who encouraged the rebellion.

Hence, problem after problem, and why man can never fix the problems, because they cannot agree on any set standard.
Each person decides what is good, bad, peace, harmony, etc.

It's crazy, to me, that these cannot be identified in a definite way, but is left to subjective opinion. Crazy.
However, the same book that identifies the root cause of problems, also makes it clear that chaos, disorder... can only end, when one allows the source of true righteousness to determine what is good, or bad, for them.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace--as in all the churches of the saints.
Isaiah 32:17 The work of righteousness will be peace; the service of righteousness will be quiet confidence forever.

Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23
It's fine if you like your religion - your hobby, effectively - but when you present it as literally the answer to all of humanity's problem, you come across as kind of full of yourself.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It's fine if you like your religion - your hobby, effectively - but when you present it as literally the answer to all of humanity's problem, you come across as kind of full of yourself.
Is that what you think of atheists, because they... including yourself, do present your views as literally the answer for all humanity.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
PS LEARN THE LIMITS OF THINKING!!!

There are scientists who study expertise as a general phenomenon. The reality is that most of what we can do, we cannot explain how we do it. For example, I defy you to write down a description for walking :)

So these expertise experts call skills that cannot be explained, "expert intuition". And I would agree that expert intuition is hugely important and cannot be ignored.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I'm not arguing it.
It is what we see, isn't it?
Are there agreed upon morals, or is it the case that people have different views regarding what's moral to them, and argue for those?

For example, if one set of persons think that peace is to be allowed to do what they want, and another disrupts their peace by telling them otherwise, or trying to prevent them, are they not defining peace and morality based on their views?

I believe that values are the foundation for morals. Now it takes some honest critical thinking to have such discussions, but I believe that if people were to discuss their values vs. their behaviors honestly, we'd mostly end up finding common ground.

But in practice, people do not practice what they preach. For example, I would say most religious fundamentalists (e.g. Christian fundamentalists), do NOT do what Jesus would do. So such a person would have to be willing to take an honest look at their behaviors before they could really engage in a productive discussion of their core values.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I believe that values are the foundation for morals. Now it takes some honest critical thinking to have such discussions, but I believe that if people were to discuss their values vs. their behaviors honestly, we'd mostly end up finding common ground.

But in practice, people do not practice what they preach. For example, I would say most religious fundamentalists (e.g. Christian fundamentalists), do NOT do what Jesus would do. So such a person would have to be willing to take an honest look at their behaviors before they could really engage in a productive discussion of their core values.
Well we humans are good at pointing at others and claiming that the other person is not honest, nor interested in honest discussion, but i usually say there is no honest discussion in that, nor in pointing to the person and saying the same thing.
I contend that these lead nowhere other than a pointy finger exercise to elevate one's self higher than they really are.
Like in Jesus' illustration. Luke 18:9-14

Oftentimes, when people say "people", and exclude themselves, we know this is more than a red flag.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member
peace and harmony was not absolutely defined, but relative to each persons view.

It reminded me of what people say about truth - that truth is relative to each person, hence there is no absolute truth
I guess that this is also a relative personal truth

There is human truth (our level of understanding)
There is Planetarian truth
There is Universal truth
There is Divine truth

To claim there is no absolute truth is not a smart claim
Also quite arrogant, as if humans have any clue about the Universe
They can't even take good care of Mother Earth
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I guess that this is also a relative personal truth

There is human truth (our level of understanding)
There is Planetarian truth
There is Universal truth
There is Divine truth

To claim there is no absolute truth is not a smart claim
Also quite arrogant, as if humans have any clue about the Universe
They can't even take good care of Mother Earth
The OP is considering "human truth", which is not truth if it isn't absolute... if you get what I am saying. ;)

For example, if scientists say X is the truth, and it is not, it is not. :D
So it is not even relative truth, human truth, or ape truth.
It's not truth... at all.

When persons make claims such as, this is my truth, and that's your truth... o_O It defies logic.
A cannot be A, and yet not A.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Is it not better to have one set standard, and law - from the supreme law giver - for all people to live by, especially considering that the evidence clearly shows, man does not know his way? Jeremiah 10:23

Actually, that would be nice. We'd also need a divine court system to settle hard cases.

Where is that standard to come from though? Not from religious "experts". They can't even agree with each other on what any given scriptures within a particular religion mean, let alone coming to a consensus on all the scriptures of all the religions. And the "supreme law giver" itself seems to be quite uninterested in spelling it all out itself, directly that is, not through human media.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Is that what you think of atheists, because they... including yourself, do present your views as literally the answer for all humanity.

Some of them, yes. A little humility never hurt anyone. That doesn't make his comment unreasonable, though.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
The OP is considering "human truth", which is not truth if it isn't absolute... if you get what I am saying. ;)

For example, if scientists say X is the truth, and it is not, it is not. :D
So it is not even relative truth, human truth, or ape truth.
It's not truth... at all.

When persons make claims such as, this is my truth, and that's your truth... o_O It defies logic.
A cannot be A, and yet not A.
Exactly, that's what my first thought was too

Also

Humans, being so infinitesimal in this huge Universe
Making absolute truth claims, is a big joke
Better be humble...realize we are
Specks of dust in the Universe
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Well we humans are good at pointing at others and claiming that the other person is not honest, nor interested in honest discussion, but i usually say there is no honest discussion in that, nor in pointing to the person and saying the same thing.
I contend that these lead nowhere other than a pointy finger exercise to elevate one's self higher than they really are.
Like in Jesus' illustration. Luke 18:9-14

Oftentimes, when people say "people", and exclude themselves, we know this is more than a red flag.

FWIW, I have - many times on this forum - stated my core values very clearly. In my experience, discussions of core values is not one that fundamentalists like to have. The good news is that most people are moderate, and those are the folks who can help move us all to a better society.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
How has that worked out throughout history?

We might have difficulty having this discussion, because I'm not sure if Jesus existed, but even if he did, I'm quite sure he was not the son of god, or in any way supernatural.

So, if you can grant me that, I can answer your question :)
 
Top