-
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!
What role does God play in morals? Is there such a thing as
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Runt
Well-Known Member
a) Morals are human inventions. God is everything; what we would call good and what we would call evil (though God does not see it this way).
b) The difference between good and evil are human definitions. God is creation and destruction. We call these things Good and Evil because of our limited understanding of the total spiritual reality.
c) However, just because human beings create morals does not mean that they have no place in our lives. They are essential to living in a human society and getting along with others.
b) The difference between good and evil are human definitions. God is creation and destruction. We call these things Good and Evil because of our limited understanding of the total spiritual reality.
c) However, just because human beings create morals does not mean that they have no place in our lives. They are essential to living in a human society and getting along with others.
Truthseeker5
Member
Morality - Don't make me laugh there is none!!!!!!!!!
Could somebody please tell me the difference between a killer who kills a rival gang member in order to increase his share of a lucractive Drug racket. To that of a Prime Minister who enters into a war to get his hands on a large amount of oil ? One is applauded, respected and even voted for by society and the other is condemmend, cosidered abhorent and looked down upon by society yet there is essentially absolutely no difference between the two. They have both killed people in the name of their own selfish gain have they not ? Even if you disagree with me that The Prime minister didn't go to war for oil you would have to admit that he wouldn't have done it if there wasn't the chance to benefit from it right ?
Darwin was right when he said the earth is run according to the survival of the fittest and he is absolutely right. The strong make the rules ans the weak have to live under them. However what we must always bear in mind is this: Who do these things com from ? Why do they happen and what can we do to reverse it ? The answer can be found at www.kabbalah.info.
Could somebody please tell me the difference between a killer who kills a rival gang member in order to increase his share of a lucractive Drug racket. To that of a Prime Minister who enters into a war to get his hands on a large amount of oil ? One is applauded, respected and even voted for by society and the other is condemmend, cosidered abhorent and looked down upon by society yet there is essentially absolutely no difference between the two. They have both killed people in the name of their own selfish gain have they not ? Even if you disagree with me that The Prime minister didn't go to war for oil you would have to admit that he wouldn't have done it if there wasn't the chance to benefit from it right ?
Darwin was right when he said the earth is run according to the survival of the fittest and he is absolutely right. The strong make the rules ans the weak have to live under them. However what we must always bear in mind is this: Who do these things com from ? Why do they happen and what can we do to reverse it ? The answer can be found at www.kabbalah.info.
Truthseeker5
Member
Hi Alaric,
I am not sure if you are including Kabbalah in this statement but if you are I have to remind you that Kabbalah is a science and is not a religion.
I am not sure if you are including Kabbalah in this statement but if you are I have to remind you that Kabbalah is a science and is not a religion.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Truthseeker, you are the first person I have ever seen who preaches "science". Science relies on the idea that hypothesis can be tested through the scientific method. Kabbalah, by my own definition, is, if not religion, at least spirituality. Not science. You can't PROVE matters of the spirit until you are dead and meet God personally.
Truthseeker5
Member
Kabbalah gives man an opportunity to do exactly that. Let me ask you something Runt doesn't it ever play on your mind why are we are here and if there is a God why is he somewhere else ? This life doesn't make any sense at all. If ou believe in God then you do have to question why you can't we see him ? why you can't we talk to him. Ect ect. I mean really doesn't that ever bother you ?
When a true Kabbalist talks about things let say re-incarnation he is not talking from a theological point of view like other religions do. For example many people I know from other faiths say that this Earth is a testing ground to see if you are good little boy or girl. Ok that's their belief, but on the same token it is a theory that cannot be proved wrong or right.
However when a Kabbalist says that the world is run according to how The Creator wants it to run it is beacuse he can percieve The Creator and feel it as such in exactly the same way as if you looked into the front of a car saw a human being driving it and then came to the conclusion that human being controls the car. When The Kabbalists describe the structure of The World of Atzilut it is because they have attained that spiritual level.
When I learn Kabbalah I have to put my faith in some one who says he is there. However the big difference is he is telling me if you follow this path you can come to it too. There will come a time when I won't have to put my faith in him and I can see and feel it for myself.
There is no other faith or system that promises this. All the others are saying is do this, do that, die and go to heaven because you have been good. Well what sounds like the more logical choice to you ?
Now people may say: "This is Blasephemy. This is outrageous how can a person makes such claims." Well I put this to you: If you believe that you will go to heaven when you die, is it really so outrageous to assume that it can be achieved whilst living on the Earth ?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Most Native Americans did not and still dont believe in 'sin'. Sin is doing somthing that 'god' or whoever tells you not to. We had morality, but it was more about doing good things vs. doing bad things. Bad things intentionally hurt people... people don't like other people hurting them. 
Creator had more important things to do than make shure everyone was acting nice... besides if you didn't show respect to those around you, you got your metaphorical bottom spanked :shock:
wa:-do
Creator had more important things to do than make shure everyone was acting nice... besides if you didn't show respect to those around you, you got your metaphorical bottom spanked :shock:
wa:-do
Runt
Well-Known Member
Truthseeker, if faith has to come into play in your "science", then it is not science. Science makes observations about phenomenon, forms a series of hypotheses about these observations, designs experimental tests to prove or disprove these hypotheses, and then, if the experiments provide causal evidence that a hypothesis has validity, the hypothesis may become a theory or law of nature.
As far as I can tell, religion is only "scientific" up to a point. Religion observes something in nature, forms a hypothesis to explain it, and (SOMETIMES... though rarely) tests that hypothesis. However, religion has NEVER been able to prove these hypothesis. If it had, there would not be so many differing opinions about the spiritual reality.
However, maybe YOUR religion really IS a science. If so, show me an example of when you have gone through this process and come out with a theory or law of nature.
As far as I can tell, religion is only "scientific" up to a point. Religion observes something in nature, forms a hypothesis to explain it, and (SOMETIMES... though rarely) tests that hypothesis. However, religion has NEVER been able to prove these hypothesis. If it had, there would not be so many differing opinions about the spiritual reality.
However, maybe YOUR religion really IS a science. If so, show me an example of when you have gone through this process and come out with a theory or law of nature.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Alaric-
I had written a fairly long reply to your questions which seems to have vanished. I will try again.
Buddhism concerns itself with long views almost exclusively; ranging for the total of this lifetime at a minimum, and onward for eons and kalpas, and to other worlds and universes.
Suffering in the short term for a long-term goal is considered wise. However "suffering" is probably not the correct word to use here. This would be considered more in the way of a lack of attachment to desires or greed. Similarly sacrificing long term prosperity for short term happiness would be considered attachment to physical/material pleasure.
Happiness and Suffering in the Buddhist sense have distinct meanings. True happiness is considered to be that which brings one closer to enlightenment, or its attainment. What most people in western society consider happiness is probably what a Buddhist would call rapture - sensual pleasures of one sort or another. Suffering in a Buddhist sense is related to life; there are four categories: Birth, Sickness, Ageing, and Death. Anything which can't be classified as one of these four isn't suffering, but attachment. IOW, I won't die if I can't afford a new BMW, and my health won't be destroyed because I don't look like Tom Cruise. I may have an unhealthy attachment to the desire for a new BMW, or to my looks. This is a result of my ignorance, and can be corrected through practice.
I had written a fairly long reply to your questions which seems to have vanished. I will try again.
Buddhism concerns itself with long views almost exclusively; ranging for the total of this lifetime at a minimum, and onward for eons and kalpas, and to other worlds and universes.
Suffering in the short term for a long-term goal is considered wise. However "suffering" is probably not the correct word to use here. This would be considered more in the way of a lack of attachment to desires or greed. Similarly sacrificing long term prosperity for short term happiness would be considered attachment to physical/material pleasure.
Happiness and Suffering in the Buddhist sense have distinct meanings. True happiness is considered to be that which brings one closer to enlightenment, or its attainment. What most people in western society consider happiness is probably what a Buddhist would call rapture - sensual pleasures of one sort or another. Suffering in a Buddhist sense is related to life; there are four categories: Birth, Sickness, Ageing, and Death. Anything which can't be classified as one of these four isn't suffering, but attachment. IOW, I won't die if I can't afford a new BMW, and my health won't be destroyed because I don't look like Tom Cruise. I may have an unhealthy attachment to the desire for a new BMW, or to my looks. This is a result of my ignorance, and can be corrected through practice.
Lightkeeper
Well-Known Member
Hi En Gyo,
In Buddhism can you get to the point where suffering and happiness are the same? I believe in Hinduism there is such a state. In other words there is no difference between the two in an enlightened person.
In Buddhism can you get to the point where suffering and happiness are the same? I believe in Hinduism there is such a state. In other words there is no difference between the two in an enlightened person.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Lightkeeper -
You pretty much have it. I would phrase it as: An enlightened person does not suffer from attachment; his/her understanding prevents this. He/she accepts the sufferings of life (Birth, Sickness, Ageing and Death) as part of life. Enlightenment is often characterized as total and unshakeable happiness.
You pretty much have it. I would phrase it as: An enlightened person does not suffer from attachment; his/her understanding prevents this. He/she accepts the sufferings of life (Birth, Sickness, Ageing and Death) as part of life. Enlightenment is often characterized as total and unshakeable happiness.
Engyo said:
Interesting. But morality refers more to actions that affect others; if an act is considered good in the long term, but affects others in the short term negatively and they do not agree with your views, what then? Could there for example be a Buddhist government that prohibited the owning of more than seven things, like a Christian government might prohibit homosexuality? If not, then Buddhism doesn't govern social morality but only personal morality, and we would have to resort to secular morality to provide laws by which a society lives, using Buddhism merely as a guide to those who chose to follow it. Is this right?
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Alaric -
"Interesting. But morality refers more to actions that affect others; if an act is considered good in the long term, but affects others in the short term negatively and they do not agree with your views, what then?"
We would have to look at a more specific example, I think. Part of my responsibility in taking such an action would be to explain it to those affected, to help them understand my choice. If they cannot agree, and I feel strongly enough to act anyway, then I accept the karma created by my action (the disagreement of those affected and however they choose to express that).
"Could there for example be a Buddhist government that prohibited the owning of more than seven things, like a Christian government might prohibit homosexuality?"
I would have to study the examples of Buddhist government which exist or have existed (there aren't too many), to be able to give an answer here.
"If not, then Buddhism doesn't govern social morality but only personal morality, and we would have to resort to secular morality to provide laws by which a society lives, using Buddhism merely as a guide to those who chose to follow it. Is this right?"
In general this is closer to the spirit of Buddhism as I understand it. Buddhism doesn't actually *prohibit* killing or any other "sin"; it merely explains that the karmic burden one acquires by doing so is such that killing is a seriously unwise choice. There is no sin as such; every thought, word or action one makes creates karma, which becomes a part of one's life. The effects of this karma come to light during this and future lives, so basically I am responsible for everything I think, say or do. The things that happen to me in my life today are the results of past karma. I am not *forbidden* to do anything I choose, but I am cautioned that I will receive the karmic rewards of whatever that is. Based on this, it only makes sense to make choices which create the most positive possible karma.
I have a friend who considers Buddhism to be a Libertarian religion.... act right in your own best interest, but no regulations. I know for sure that the model you describe above would be the only applicable one in a multi-religious society. I sure wouldn't want to be the one charged with coming up with a Buddhist legal code. Buddhism is fundamentally about the understanding and eventual mastery of the self. If I understand and have mastered my self, I don't need society to provide me with a moral code or compass; I already have a built-in one.
Now the back side of this is that Buddhists are usually realists too. I know that I don't always live up to my ideals; I make choices out of greed, anger or ignorance way too often. Those who don't practice Buddhism don't necessarily have this built-in moral compass, or if they do it may not point north. Thus some sort of code of behavior within society is necessary, at least at this point in human development.
"Interesting. But morality refers more to actions that affect others; if an act is considered good in the long term, but affects others in the short term negatively and they do not agree with your views, what then?"
We would have to look at a more specific example, I think. Part of my responsibility in taking such an action would be to explain it to those affected, to help them understand my choice. If they cannot agree, and I feel strongly enough to act anyway, then I accept the karma created by my action (the disagreement of those affected and however they choose to express that).
"Could there for example be a Buddhist government that prohibited the owning of more than seven things, like a Christian government might prohibit homosexuality?"
I would have to study the examples of Buddhist government which exist or have existed (there aren't too many), to be able to give an answer here.
"If not, then Buddhism doesn't govern social morality but only personal morality, and we would have to resort to secular morality to provide laws by which a society lives, using Buddhism merely as a guide to those who chose to follow it. Is this right?"
In general this is closer to the spirit of Buddhism as I understand it. Buddhism doesn't actually *prohibit* killing or any other "sin"; it merely explains that the karmic burden one acquires by doing so is such that killing is a seriously unwise choice. There is no sin as such; every thought, word or action one makes creates karma, which becomes a part of one's life. The effects of this karma come to light during this and future lives, so basically I am responsible for everything I think, say or do. The things that happen to me in my life today are the results of past karma. I am not *forbidden* to do anything I choose, but I am cautioned that I will receive the karmic rewards of whatever that is. Based on this, it only makes sense to make choices which create the most positive possible karma.
I have a friend who considers Buddhism to be a Libertarian religion.... act right in your own best interest, but no regulations. I know for sure that the model you describe above would be the only applicable one in a multi-religious society. I sure wouldn't want to be the one charged with coming up with a Buddhist legal code. Buddhism is fundamentally about the understanding and eventual mastery of the self. If I understand and have mastered my self, I don't need society to provide me with a moral code or compass; I already have a built-in one.
Now the back side of this is that Buddhists are usually realists too. I know that I don't always live up to my ideals; I make choices out of greed, anger or ignorance way too often. Those who don't practice Buddhism don't necessarily have this built-in moral compass, or if they do it may not point north. Thus some sort of code of behavior within society is necessary, at least at this point in human development.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Engyo said:
Aye, and that makes morality more of a personal issue than a social one. As long as you are not harming society as a whole, you are accountable only to yourself, for you will accept the consequences of your own actions. Those who will reach Enlightenment will come to understand how to master themselves in their own time; a society that FORCES them to adhere to a moral code actually restricts that growth.
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Runt -
But there is always the other side of the question:
"Those who will reach Enlightenment will come to understand how to master themselves in their own time; a society that FORCES them to adhere to a moral code actually restricts that growth."
What of those who don't currently choose to pursue the path of enlightenment? Are you willing to subject yourself to a society where no moral code is enforced on those who CHOOSE NOT TO take responsibility for their own behavior? [According to Buddhism they are eventually forced to, but that comes later.]
This is reminiscent to me of the debate surrounding personal freedoms (here in the US). Any moral code established by society will inhibit the personal freedoms of the individuals in that society to a greater or lesser extent, in order to establish societal freedoms. IOW, murder is against the law, in order that society as a whole be free from murder and murderers. One has to choose what level of individual freedom versus what level of societal freedom one can accept, and then work towards convincing the rest of society that your idea is the correct one, or at least live by it yourself and take your lumps. That is basically what every criminal does; deciding that their personal freedom to take your stuff (insert crime of choice) is more important than society's (your) freedom from thievery. Even "crimes of passion" fit this model; one person's freedom to express their emotions regarding their spouse's infidelity overrides their spouse's right to personal safety.
I don't think human development has progressed far enough yet to allow a society without a moral code of some sort. The sort of tribalism that is still hardwired into us almost seems to require it.
But there is always the other side of the question:
"Those who will reach Enlightenment will come to understand how to master themselves in their own time; a society that FORCES them to adhere to a moral code actually restricts that growth."
What of those who don't currently choose to pursue the path of enlightenment? Are you willing to subject yourself to a society where no moral code is enforced on those who CHOOSE NOT TO take responsibility for their own behavior? [According to Buddhism they are eventually forced to, but that comes later.]
This is reminiscent to me of the debate surrounding personal freedoms (here in the US). Any moral code established by society will inhibit the personal freedoms of the individuals in that society to a greater or lesser extent, in order to establish societal freedoms. IOW, murder is against the law, in order that society as a whole be free from murder and murderers. One has to choose what level of individual freedom versus what level of societal freedom one can accept, and then work towards convincing the rest of society that your idea is the correct one, or at least live by it yourself and take your lumps. That is basically what every criminal does; deciding that their personal freedom to take your stuff (insert crime of choice) is more important than society's (your) freedom from thievery. Even "crimes of passion" fit this model; one person's freedom to express their emotions regarding their spouse's infidelity overrides their spouse's right to personal safety.
I don't think human development has progressed far enough yet to allow a society without a moral code of some sort. The sort of tribalism that is still hardwired into us almost seems to require it.
Runt
Well-Known Member
Engyo said:
There is a limit to it. Of course there should be laws to prevent crimes like murder, arson, thievery, and things that hurt us.
But laws against things like... say, Gay Marriage. Not only does it not hurt anyone, it is only "immoral" in the eyes of one religion. And then there are smaller laws: like there was a time in Arizona that we couldn't purchase alcohol on Sunday. And there was a law in Arizona only a few years ago that prevented a couple (one male one female) from living together if they were not married. I kid you not. Then there was Prohibition.
This is the government trying to force morality on people, to "guide" them to make correct choices... the only problem is, who gets to decide what is "moral" and what isn't?
Engyo
Prince of Dorkness!
Runt -
In some ways I am a bit of a cynic...... For most if not all of these "smaller laws", follow the money (or the power). Many of those you cite were/are established by the Christian majority, who felt them to be "only right"; right alongside the prohibition of interracial marriage, racially and sometimes gender segregated public places, virtually nobody working on Sunday, very few women taking jobs outside the home, etc., etc., etc. Our society has changed and evolved; what was horrifyingly unthinkable 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, is today commonplace. This is true of both good and bad things. There was also a lot of what we consider bad that went unremarked..... Family abuse and sexual abuse went mostly unreported; mental health issues were severely stigmatized; and lots more. Society's morals, and written and unwritten codes of acceptable behavior, change over time.
For you and anyone else, I have a question: What is the difference between prohibition and the "war on drugs"?
In some ways I am a bit of a cynic...... For most if not all of these "smaller laws", follow the money (or the power). Many of those you cite were/are established by the Christian majority, who felt them to be "only right"; right alongside the prohibition of interracial marriage, racially and sometimes gender segregated public places, virtually nobody working on Sunday, very few women taking jobs outside the home, etc., etc., etc. Our society has changed and evolved; what was horrifyingly unthinkable 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, is today commonplace. This is true of both good and bad things. There was also a lot of what we consider bad that went unremarked..... Family abuse and sexual abuse went mostly unreported; mental health issues were severely stigmatized; and lots more. Society's morals, and written and unwritten codes of acceptable behavior, change over time.
For you and anyone else, I have a question: What is the difference between prohibition and the "war on drugs"?