Right and wrong, Good and evil,

[Pah]

I think it's part of an increasing problem Americans – particularly judges and other public officials – are having distinguishing between right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, right and left, black and white. Joseph Farah in a recent piece on WorldNet.

The greater problem is one where everything is defined by the extremes and people hold the rest of us to that rigid ascetic and antiqitated worldview be it any monotheistic religion. It leads to the arrogance of the "right way" as distinguished from the "sinful way". It fosters the supression of inanate rights recognized by free societies to conform to a malevolant dictatorship of the "holy".

Bob

 

[SoulTYPE]

Bob, I don't know what to comment, but I think you explained that very well

Do you believe that authorities and politicians are forcing us to believe in their way being the right way?

 

[Master Vigil]

Perhaps they are having difficulty doing so because they are actually finding that their is no set guidelines for right and wrong, good and evil. Boy, what a shock, I've known that my entire life. I agree totally with your post Pah.

 

[t3gah]

The greater problem is one where everything is defined by the extremes and people hold the rest of us to that rigid ascetic and antiqitated worldview be it any monotheistic religion. It leads to the arrogance of the "right way" as distinguished from the "sinful way". It fosters the supression of inanate rights recognized by free societies to conform to a malevolant dictatorship of the "holy".

I think this touches on the 'Church and State' laws. In the beginning of this country America, didn't the so-called 'founding fathers' use the bible as a reference for making the laws surrounding 'good and bad' but then later create logistical laws that contramanded the biblical laws they set up as legal laws?



Bob,

What is the word that I hilighted in red from you comment supposed to be?

 

[Pah]

I think this touches on the 'Church and State' laws. In the beginning of this country America, didn't the so-called 'founding fathers' use the bible as a reference for making the laws surrounding 'good and bad' but then later create logistical laws that contramanded the biblical laws they set up as legal laws?

Not at all. It goes back much further even to the earliest intepretations of the Bible. It is evident in the separation of wholly evil (Satan) from wholly good (God) and no intervening steps. An ascetic view could not possibly allow God to be a source of evil. But we know, from the infanticide and gencide commanded by God, that this is not so.

What is the word that I hilighted in red from you comment supposed to be?

Antiquated - which now means I have another reason for my poor spelling. It looked right when I proofed it. My eye sight is failing? It also is indicative of pattern recognition where the correct letter may be substituted with another and the same meaning is still acheived - much like the "hilighted" in your reply. I read it is "highlighted" before I started this reply.

I'm laughing at myself - I hope you laugh at yourself too!
:biglaugh:

 

[painted wolf]

its funny how the religious demand that thier view on 'right' and 'wrong' be the "true way" when they can't agree ammongst themselves what 'right' and 'wrong' are.

wa:do

 

[michel]

Painted wolf,

It is indeed a sad reflection that churches are, like everyone else 'in the numbers game' - they seem to change their politics to suit the need, in order to find more believers. That's how I see it; of course, I might well be wrong..................

:help:

 

[t3gah]

Not at all. It goes back much further even to the earliest intepretations of the Bible. It is evident in the separation of wholly evil (Satan) from wholly good (God) and no intervening steps. An ascetic view could not possibly allow God to be a source of evil. But we know, from the infanticide and gencide commanded by God, that this is not so.

You misspelled genocide. God certainly did wipe out many nations and the accounts are brutal. The one that really freaks me out is the account where god hurls stones and boulders from the sky to kill all 'opposers'. Holy sheep dip captain!

Antiquated - which now means I have another reason for my poor spelling. It looked right when I proofed it. My eye sight is failing? It also is indicative of pattern recognition where the correct letter may be substituted with another and the same meaning is still acheived - much like the "hilighted" in your reply. I read it is "highlighted" before I started this reply.

I'm laughing at myself - I hope you laugh at yourself too!
:biglaugh:

Yep, I didn't see the gh missing. It 'sounded' right though. Darn brain to hand uncoordination! ROFL!

Oh, and I did try the U substitution trick. The only problem I had was that there was this T in the way so I thought the word might be another language.

antiqitated

 

[Scuba Pete]

antiqitated: Assasination by dropping large antiques on the head.

As for the topic at hand... yes we all want to foist our individual moralities on others. We are convinced that only we can truly see the light. This mentality is just as bad for the atheist as it is the theist. There are certain laws that not only seperate church and state, but EXCLUDE any religious groups while allowing non-religious groups. Groups is groups and ALL should enjoy the same protection under the law. This includes Gays too!

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

Perhaps they are having difficulty doing so because they are actually finding that their is no set guidelines for right and wrong, good and evil. Boy, what a shock, I've known that my entire life. I agree totally with your post Pah.

I disagree that there are not set guidelines for right and wrong -- just because one set of absolute guidelines has proven unworkable does not mean the concept of absolute morality should be discarded.

An absolute moral code is problematic when it is logically inconsistent. The problem with Catholic absolute morality stems from the innate contradictions within the perfect selflessness it commands. Jesus Christ firmly told his believers to turn the other cheek when wronged, yet I hear George W. Bush preaching a decidedly Old Testament morality when it comes to his War on Terrorism. I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong to do so, but I am saying that he's clearly violating a laundry list of Catholic commandments and divine decrees while at the same time claiming he's doing it with God's own encouragement.

Christian morality is too simple, too black and white as you've said -- so much so that it is impractical and unworkable, leading to violations of Christian morality that are made necessary by the human condition. Catholic morality tells you how to judge people, then tells you not to judge. It commands you not to steal, but then tells you to accept it without question or resistance when others steal from you. It promises the potential for absolute condemnation while demanding absolute forgiveness and swearing absolute love. The problem with morality today is not that it is absolute, but that it is logically unsound.

There are other moralities out there that are not based on religion, absolute moral codes that instead support reason as the final arbiter of right and wrong. I hold to Objectivism myself, and recommend clicking the link in my signature if you'd like to hear a third alternative to the false dichotomy of 'moral relativism' and 'religious moral absolutism:' Secular moral absolutism.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Christian morality is too simple, too black and white as you've said -- so much so that it is impractical and unworkable, leading to violations of Christian morality that are made necessary by the human condition.

You are wrong on SOOO many levels here! Too black and white FOR YOU, impractical and unworkable FOR YOU. But not so for quite a few of us who live within those parameters.

As for clicking on links to go elsewhere else for enlightenment... it would be better to start a new thread right here on this forum. I am sure you will do a stellar job of explaining things.

As a caveat, King George does not seem to abide by either testament. He answers only to himself and Cheney.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

You are wrong on SOOO many levels here! Too black and white FOR YOU, impractical and unworkable FOR YOU. But not so for quite a few of us who live within those parameters.

Perhaps. If I came to your house and stole one of your cars, would you hand me the keys to the other one if I asked? If I took those keys, then smacked you in the face, would you smile and let me do it again?

And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not [to take thy] coat also.

You're working on a computer right now... talk about untold riches, you could sell that computer and feed hundreds of people in Africa. Imagine the quantity of wealth in Jesus' day that would account for that; how was that camel supposed to pass through the eye of a needle with such riches strapped to its back?

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

And you can't tell me that you come to this forum, posting every day, without thinking that some of us atheists are bad, immoral people, can you?

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

I'm not criticising your morality, because your morality certainly does not adhere to the lunatic simplicity of Catholicism -- if it did, you'd be a half-naked African missionary without worldly possessions patiently awaiting the end of this trivially brief Earthly life so your eternity in heaven can begin. George W. Bush is just an example of a Catholic who accepts the divinity of his faith without realising the scope of its commandments -- commandments he violates, regularly, every day.

Too simple for me? Too impractical for me? You're a hypocrite unless you're beaming your forum posts in through proxy from the back alleys of Calcutta.

As for clicking on links to go elsewhere else for enlightenment... it would be better to start a new thread right here on this forum. I am sure you will do a stellar job of explaining things.

I'm just finishing Atlas Shrugged myself, then I'll be reading "The Virtue of Selfishness," then I'll be exploring the various Objectivism forums on the internet to learn more about it and to see if I'm going to stick with it. Once I get all that done, I'll definitely start talking about it here

 

[painted wolf]

First off.. Bush is NOT a Catholic!:tsk:
He is 'born again' christian... very protestent.:biglaugh:

Secondly little about Christian morality is very black or white... just read the Bible.

wa:do

 

[No*s]

Yes, Christian morality is often very black and white (but there are a great many grays). However, it doesn't follow that we support malevolent despots. I don't think you'll get many responses with a first post like that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Perhaps. If I came to your house and stole one of your cars, would you hand me the keys to the other one if I asked?

I have had a car stolen. I got the person a job instead of a prison sentence. I also gave him my coat that blustery day.

You're working on a computer right now... talk about untold riches, you could sell that computer and feed hundreds of people in Africa.

Then how could I reach out and torment you? Do you think that physical suffering is more important than spiritual suffering? You probably never gave it thought.

I'm not criticising your morality,

Sure you are! Claiming otherwise is disengenuous. Please be honest.

Once I get all that done, I'll definitely start talking about it here

I anxiously await your report.

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

However, it doesn't follow that we support malevolent despots. I don't think you'll get many responses with a first post like that.

I didn't mean to imply that at all -- my only purpose in bringing Bush up was to show that this man, who over half the country voted for, clearly and regularly violates the sacred morality of his faith while continuing to use that faith to justify his actions. It was only an example of someone purporting to follow an impractical code of morals while actually doing anything but. The fact that there's no huge outcry specifically related to the contradiction between his actions and his moral code is evidence of how expected it is for practical actions to contradict impractical morality.

I did not mean to imply that Christians, Catholics, Protestants or anyone else is some how obligated into following him or any other malevolent despot.

I have had a car stolen. I got the person a job instead of a prison sentence. I also gave him my coat that blustery day.

Why did you have to wait until your car was stolen to give it away -- wouldn't it have been more virtuous to hand it to the first homeless man you happened upon? For that matter, why did you have a car in the first place, when modern public transportation is cheaper, cleaner and just as effective? Why did you have that second coat standing by to replace the one you handed away? Do you currently live in the cheapest, most squalid living conditions you're able to manage so as to donate a rent surplus to charity? Do you limit yourself to only the cheapest foods and the cheapest clothing, so as to donate your riches to the poor?

These are all virtuous things, according to your morality. With the weight of failure so astronomically, incomprehensibly high (an eternity in hell), with the price so utterly insignificant (the blink of an eye of your time on Earth), with the reward so perfect and so eternal and so staggeringly, mind-blowingly appealing (immortality and infinite bliss), why aren't you spending every waking moment in a quest for that eternity, doing absolutely everything you can to secure your place in heaven?

The natural consequence of religious morality, if everything about religion is taken at face value, is that you get to choose between two ultimate extremes of good and bad with only the most insignificant price to pay; it's all extreme, it's all simple, it's all black and white. The conclusion is equally simple: You pay that price, you pay it again and again and again, you pay it a thousand times over, and you do it with a smile on your face.

Have you paid that price a thousand times over? Has every waking breath been spent in that quest for heaven?

If not, why not? It's what your morality demands of you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you paid that price a thousand times over? Has every waking breath been spent in that quest for heaven?

The debate against theism is not advanced by proving yourself zealous in promoting childish caricartures of theology. Perhaps you should turn to debating objectivist morality.

 

[No*s]

Ah. In that case...sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[TheTrendyCynic]

The debate against theism is not advanced by proving yourself zealous in promoting childish caricartures of theology.

I've made points and I've supported them. There are clear lines of logic in all of my posts, lines of logic that can be followed and, should you deign to take the time, refuted.

Here, I've given clear Biblical examples where Jesus Christ himself affirms a black and white decree with sweeping consequences. I've shown how those consequences would logically apply to modern society. I've thus shown how absurd this morality would be if taken to its natural extreme. I then went on to claim that any truly religious person would want to take it to its natural extreme because of what is at stake. I then explained the contradiction posed by the evidence that religious people do not take religious morality to the natural extreme by concluding that religious morality is an impractical, flawed system of absolute morality.

You with me? Now make a point, then support the point, or keep out of the discussion. Debate in general is not advanced by your drive-by condemnations absent of a second sentence let alone both logic and reason. I'm sick of these hack'n'slash dismissals; if you don't have the time to respond to a post with a bare minimum of thoroughness, then cut back on your subscribed threads until you do.

 

[Scott1]

Let's stop with the personal stuff and get back on topic please.