Religion

[deadboy]

JoshuaMonkey, the way I see it is Jesus turned water into wine, yeah? Why would he do that if he thought it was bad for the people to drink the wine . Then there is communion, what do you drink there..... wine. Wine seems to pop up quite alot in christianity, and it's been proven that it is perfectly good for you in the right amounts. So basically any religion that says no alcohol has pretty much got it wrong.

[formerly known as hf]

This kind of morality by majority seems to me to be about the worst excess of postmodern society I can imagine, the irony being that in such a situation the strongest, richest, powerful, most corrupt eventually determine what is right....

Kind of like current US foreign policy..

At least we understand each other eve if we don't agree HF...

Just remember that if right and wrong are sooo flexible you have to make damn sure you are not in the minority...

I wasn't arguing for morality by majority, just about the nature of right and wrong.

You are right that the powerful, rich, and most importantly, the influential, have the most power in deciding right and wrong in a situation where morality is determined by the majority. I instinctively hate such a situation, but that is the situation we are in, but, I would argue, we were in that situation even moreso in the past.

In terms of the history of morality in western Europe. It has long been the case, until this last Century, that the Christian faith was by far the most powerful basis of morality. Yet, who decided upon the morals? It was the clergy, the pope etc. It was those rich and powerful people who decided what to tell the masses what to think. So, by using their influence, they could make the majority fall in line with their morality. Thus, morality was decided by the majority, but the descision of themajority was decided by those with powerful influence, just as you described.

This is still the case, but, thankfully, we are living in an increasingly heterogenous world, and so those with power and influence are not necessarily all espousing the same morality. Thus, we, as the masses, get wider freedom of choice in who we listen to, we also are generally better educated, enough to realise that we may have the right and ability to disagree with those trying to exert their influence on us.

In a world of such multiplicity, where majority is still widely decided by the majority, there is a much greater freedom of descision, thus making the majority smaller.

Right and wrong are so flexible, but are also deeply imbedded in their contextuality. It is very difficult to think and discuss global rights and wrongs, because the grey area widens the more people you include.

What I argue for is a recognition of the contextuality of morality, and of its multiplicity. That things are always both right and wrong, and whilst it is an argument of pointlessness when discussing widley acknowledged wrongs, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that something is both right and wrong where the majority position is not clear.

In terms of personal morality, I would argue that simply following majority morality is not good enough, and that you must consider the context of your actions, your own positioning, and the positionting of those you affect. Also, more importantly, everyone should be open to the idea that they are morally wrong. Ahat I hate more than anything, is arogance, especially moral arrogance, thankfully I see little of it around here.

[El_Skwidd]

Coming off of HF's points, what I hate most in the US right now is the abortion debate. The pro-life standpoint is based heavily in religion, and they're basically trying to impose that religion on the rest of the population. Not only is the majority determining the morality, but they're also determining the law.

Now, the majority probably should determine the law... but a law based that much on a religion should be illegal.

Bleh. It seems like everyone has their own opinion on it, that's mine.

But this isn't about abortion, it's about religion.

[Stan]

I feel like I have to butt in on this part.

Christians believe a baby is being killed during an abortion. If a person who believes a baby is being killed stands around and does nothing it would be wrong whether you're a Christian or not.

It isn't a religious issue it is a right vs wrong issue.

I believe there are "non-religious" people who would believe a baby is being killed as well as some "religious" who would argue that it is just a fetus.

Even before I was a Christian I could never understand a person making a claim that a fetus is not an unborn baby. I recall a time when I believed a mother's right was paramount to a baby's life, but I still believed it was a baby. That was when I was in high school and the last thing I could imagine was being a father.

When I look back on that time I believe I was selfishly thinking about me and not another human being. Thank God I didn't have to act on that belief. I can't imagine the guilt I would have carried the rest of my life.

I'm not saying everyone else is me or should think like me, but I think to understand where a Pro-Life person is coming from a person should first realize that. They aren't trying to impose a religious conviction on someone as much as trying to save a person's life. I think that's why Pro-Life organizations will encourage adoption. In that instance a life can be saved and the mother can be free of the responsibility of a child.

Isn't that really the only compromise?

[Dee]

Speaking of abortion.. I have been thinking about abortion for sometime...

No, I don't want to have an abortion, I'm not pregnant (lol) just thinking whether it's right or wrong..

Relegionally (if that's even a word) abortion is O.K. during the first three months of pregnancy. This could be a scientific face as well, I don't know. The heart of a baby starts beating after three months of pregnancy have passed, that's when the baby is giving a soul. Because, the baby without a soul, isn't even a baby, right? He's not even human without a soul. He's just... a thing!

I don't know.. Just wanted to give my opinion on abortion, I know it's way off-topic

[Nalaris]

JoshuaMonkey, the way I see it is Jesus turned water into wine, yeah? Why would he do that if he thought it was bad for the people to drink the wine . Then there is communion, what do you drink there..... wine. Wine seems to pop up quite alot in christianity, and it's been proven that it is perfectly good for you in the right amounts. So basically any religion that says no alcohol has pretty much got it wrong.

Fool fool...

We drink water at sacrament. Water, at the time, was dirty and difficult to cleanse. Wine cleansed itself, being made with alcohol. The times have changed, water is clean.

Now then, as to how alcohol is bad: it's not about the hangover. It's about addiction. Please, try to go, let's say, one month with no alcohol. Period. You can't. If you honestly believe it's okay to drink alcohol there's no way you can dredge up the willpower to resist that addiction. That means that if I'm the only source of alcohol, give it a few months, and I'll own you and every other alcoholic.

Abortion: Religious or no, killing a baby is wrong. In the womb or not, the baby's alive. It's murder to kill, and murder of a young and undeveloped life, argue with me if you will HF, you're lying to yourself and to the good people of this message, is wrong. Better to sacrifice someone who's at least had a chance to live life.

As to HF's right and wrong theory, man cannot dictate right and wrong for himself. Without universal right and wrong there is chaos. With chaos is non-existance, for God's house is a house of order, therefore he would not create chaos: he is a rather orderly being (something I should become, actually). Without God, we wouldn't exist. Debate it if you will, I know it's true, I've felt it, literally, physically, and not because I drank some 'holy water'. Just because I've prayed.

Pain goes away, physical problems right themselves, droughts magically end, all in modern day! All in my lifetime, and I am not that old. God is real. Either that or mankind has enough power do these things uncounciously, which is a tad bit unlikely, aye?

About Mormonism, we are not, as is widely believed, Protestant. We do not protest to the Catholic church, we recieve revelation from God to our prophet that it messed up.

Just so everyone knows, the religion I give the most respect to outside Mormonism is Islam. Awkward, seeing as Mormons are Christian, but the principles are actually closer in most cases than your average Christian church...

A few points made earlier: the society I was born into was decided by God. I'm not sure if I was given the blessing of being born into a Mormon community because I was righteous enough to deserve it or because my will was such that I needed to learn and feel it from birth to have enough strength to survive the never ending temptation of the modern day.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm not saying everyone else is me or should think like me, but I think to understand where a Pro-Life person is coming from a person should first realize that.

I do understand the poisitioning of Pro-Life groups, but even so, I deeply disagree.

Firstly, as a man, I do not feel we really have a right to discuss abortion, or much about pregnancy, not with any authority. We are deciding upon things that will never affect us as much as it affects others. Saying that, I am very much pro-abortion.

First off, I do not believe in concepts of the soul, or sprit. What I do believe in is the right of choice for a woman to control her own body, in her own wishes. Until a certain stage, a foetus is just that - part of the mother's body.

If you do not think abortion is right, then so be it. But do not try to inflict your opinions upon others. If a mother decides to have an abortion, that is her choice to make, her decision, and her right. Pregnancy has long been used as a tool for control, the current abortion debate seems little different.

I am not pro-adoption, I am pro-CHOICE. I will say it again. You are welcome toyour own opinions on the subject, but do not inflict or force them upon others, that is what is wrong to me.

As for Nalaris' comments, I will admit they seemed a bit unclear to me. I suppose we begin from very different viewpoints. I see society, morality and so forth as nothing other than a consturct of people (note, people This:

man cannot dictate right and wrong for himself

(emphasis added) made me shiver slightly.)

As i have argued before, and will repeat in response to nalaris. If there is a universal morality, determined by God, we can never know what that universal morality is. We can feel like we might know that universal morality, as I'm sure you do with your religious convictions. But, as many people feel they know the true, universal morality, and those moralities are contradictory, morality will always be a thing of multiplicity.

As a society, we experience morality as something which is multiple, contradictory, and controversial. Our experiences of morality, our feelings on the subject, have much more bearing on the relity of our world, than the supposed existence of a universal morality.

Because there is no universal agreement on what the universal morals are (which don't exist anyway, but for sake of argument I'll roll with it) and there is no way of knowing, for certain, what these universal morals are, discussion of such a thing is pointless. Our experiences and feelings have much more to do with the morality we know.

Pain goes away, physical problems right themselves, droughts magically end, all in modern day! All in my lifetime, and I am not that old. God is real. Either that or mankind has enough power do these things uncounciously, which is a tad bit unlikely, aye?

This really annoys me, sorry. I really hate it when people see things that are fully explainable and say it is an act of God.

Maybe, just maybe, the medical knowledge of doctors is what helps them save patients and ease their suffering, rather than it being via the hand of God? Maybe, just maybe, changes in the global climate are what end droughts. Maybe, just maybe, all these 'miracles' are nothing but the same-old world doing what it does, much of wihch, is now explainable in far more plausible terms than 'magic'.

Magic and miracles were only ways to describe things that we could not explain. In recent years we have come to understand so so so much more about our planet and the physical world. We are able to fully explain so much more. Why, oh why, in this day and age, do people feel the need to revert back to primitive conceptions of miracles and magic? We understand things now, and so do not need to resort to explaining things with mystical and religious terms.

[Phalynx]

[quote=]I wasn't arguing for morality by majority, just about the nature of right and wrong.

You are right that the powerful, rich, and most importantly, the influential, have the most power in deciding right and wrong in a situation where morality is determined by the majority. I instinctively hate such a situation, but that is the situation we are in, but, I would argue, we were in that situation even moreso in the past.

In terms of the history of morality in western Europe. It has long been the case, until this last Century, that the Christian faith was by far the most powerful basis of morality. Yet, who decided upon the morals? It was the clergy, the pope etc. It was those rich and powerful people who decided what to tell the masses what to think. So, by using their influence, they could make the majority fall in line with their morality. Thus, morality was decided by the majority, but the descision of themajority was decided by those with powerful influence, just as you described. [\quote]

I have to agree and this is where religion and faith diverge. Faith (for me) is my belief and relationship with God, and how I play that out in my life (sometimes anyway), Religion, however, is an earthly (ignoring religious jargon that means determined by the rich and powerful) formal organisation of faith. Christianity, as such, coming often from the hearts of corrupt blokes not the revelation of God has got upto some crazy things and ideas For example, Praying and worshipping Mary/ the saints, the spanish inquisition, charging for forgiveness of sins, self flagellation, transubstantiation etc. etc. all things almost diametrically opposite to the teaching of Christ.. Some good things too but that's not what we are talking about.

This is still the case, but, thankfully, we are living in an increasingly heterogenous world, and so those with power and influence are not necessarily all espousing the same morality. Thus, we, as the masses, get wider freedom of choice in who we listen to, we also are generally better educated, enough to realise that we may have the right and ability to disagree with those trying to exert their influence on us.

In a world of such multiplicity, where majority is still widely decided by the majority, there is a much greater freedom of descision, thus making the majority smaller.

You see I see the religious right in America as very much a moral majority that is using faith as a pretext for its own agenda, I don't hear much of forgiveness, turning the other cheek, giving to the poor and being good stewards of the earth coming over from them (although this is governed by a secular media with its own wierd bias...

In terms of education, we are fast moving to a situation where authoratative experts in any given field can't agree on much and their opinion can be bought as much as anything else, for that reason I see the world mucking around and talking about change while we destroy it...

Right and wrong are so flexible, but are also deeply imbedded in their contextuality. It is very difficult to think and discuss global rights and wrongs, because the grey area widens the more people you include.

What I argue for is a recognition of the contextuality of morality, and of its multiplicity. That things are always both right and wrong, and whilst it is an argument of pointlessness when discussing widley acknowledged wrongs, it is incredibly important to acknowledge that something is both right and wrong where the majority position is not clear.

In terms of personal morality, I would argue that simply following majority morality is not good enough, and that you must consider the context of your actions, your own positioning, and the positionting of those you affect. Also, more importantly, everyone should be open to the idea that they are morally wrong. Ahat I hate more than anything, is arogance, especially moral arrogance, thankfully I see little of it around here.

There are times when this kind of uncertainty can be crippling, its fine as a philosphical argument but when crunch comes to crunch you have to have firm ground to make some decisions from.... I know this wouldn't be your position but I do find it frustrating when people come out with something like, 'As long as you do what you think is right when it comes to the next life you will be safe' In my more rebellious moments I play devils advocate and say if you are an atheist then whats right is purely what has the best outcome for you, go ahead swindle, murder whatver because holding to some watered down religious ethic is totally pointless if you dont believe![/quote]

[Stan]

I had a long winded reply, but I lost power just before sending it. Guess that was God's way of cutting me off. (Kidding, kind of)

Anyway, I agree pretty closely with Phalynx, especially about the relationship vs religiousity. I can't the word religious. To me it is a conotation to rules and wacky doctrine.

I believe Christ wants us to be a human in a relationship with him through prayer and listening. He wants us to acknowledge him for who he is...Lord of the universe.

If a person does that they'll sense the direction God wants them to go and they'll usually WANT to follow. It almost sounds like a contridiction but I feel more free since being a Christian rather than confined by rules, yet I live by a moral code (I try to anyway).

[Nalaris]

First off, I do not believe in concepts of the soul, or sprit. What I do believe in is the right of choice for a woman to control her own body, in her own wishes. Until a certain stage, a foetus is just that - part of the mother's body.

Believe what you will.

If you do not think abortion is right, then so be it. But do not try to inflict your opinions upon others. If a mother decides to have an abortion, that is her choice to make, her decision, and her right. Pregnancy has long been used as a tool for control, the current abortion debate seems little different.

I, personally, do not wish to control womankind anymore than I wish to control man. I don't wish to restrict free will as doing so is a sin. I simply believe that an unborn childs life is more important than that of a grown woman's: She's had her chance, the infant has not.

I am not pro-adoption, I am pro-CHOICE. I will say it again. You are welcome toyour own opinions on the subject, but do not inflict or force them upon others, that is what is wrong to me.

As for Nalaris' comments, I will admit they seemed a bit unclear to me. I suppose we begin from very different viewpoints. I see society, morality and so forth as nothing other than a consturct of people (note, people This:

man cannot dictate right and wrong for himself

(emphasis added) made me shiver slightly.)

That is nothing but twisting words to your own purposes, a practice reminiscient of the Devil's. The same rules apply to women: God dictates right and wrong, as his God dictated right and wrong. The right and wrong was always the same, no matter how far back you go.

As a society, we experience morality as something which is multiple, contradictory, and controversial. Our experiences of morality, our feelings on the subject, have much more bearing on the relity of our world, than the supposed existence of a universal morality.[/qoute]

The world is corrupt. Babylon, as it's sometimes called. The worlds morals will always wish and wash, and contradict. Do you think Satan is trying to teach?

Because there is no universal agreement on what the universal morals are (which don't exist anyway, but for sake of argument I'll roll with it) and there is no way of knowing, for certain, what these universal morals are, discussion of such a thing is pointless. Our experiences and feelings have much more to do with the morality we know.

I've debated this before, I won't strike it up again.

Pain goes away, physical problems right themselves, droughts magically end, all in modern day! All in my lifetime, and I am not that old. God is real. Either that or mankind has enough power do these things uncounciously, which is a tad bit unlikely, aye?

This really annoys me, sorry. I really hate it when people see things that are fully explainable and say it is an act of God.

Yes, we've invented technology to the extent that we can actually control weather, thus ending drought. Yes, doctors these days are so good they can relieve my intense stomach pains without my ever even having seen them or taken their pills (because, at the time, I was in a car). And of course the real reason that missionairies are capable of healing the sick through blessing is because they're secretly shoving pills down the third-world countrmen's throats.

Maybe, just maybe, the medical knowledge of doctors is what helps them save patients and ease their suffering, rather than it being via the hand of God? Maybe, just maybe, changes in the global climate are what end droughts. Maybe, just maybe, all these 'miracles' are nothing but the same-old world doing what it does, much of wihch, is now explainable in far more plausible terms than 'magic'.

See above. You have no idea how much I want to flame you, but that wouldn't be right, besides, five pages, religious debate, no flames, that's gotta be a record. Hooray for the Cantr forum community!

Magic and miracles were only ways to describe things that we could not explain. In recent years we have come to understand so so so much more about our planet and the physical world. We are able to fully explain so much more. Why, oh why, in this day and age, do people feel the need to revert back to primitive conceptions of miracles and magic? We understand things now, and so do not need to resort to explaining things with mystical and religious terms.

Primitive? I've seen and felt living proof around me and within me. The scientific process. Trust me, when I don't feel the Holy Ghost I feel a void that leads to my questioning beliefs. It's never lasted, though.

[formerly known as hf]

God wrote down right and wrong in a book and tells us more about it each day through his prophet. What we need to know, he tells us. If we're willing to accept, we recieve. Nothing is withheld except that which we do not truly want.

This book, the Bible, have you read it?
I have illustrated before that it can be used to declare ANYTHING as morally ok, including the stoning of virgin rape victims, homosexuals, condoning rape and slavery...

Yes, we've invented technology to the extent that we can actually control weather, thus ending drought. Yes, doctors these days are so good they can relieve my intense stomach pains without my ever even having seen them or taken their pills (because, at the time, I was in a car). And of course the real reason that missionairies are capable of healing the sick through blessing is because they're secretly shoving pills down the third-world countrmen's throats.

You misunderstand me. I was not suggesting that drought ends because of us, but that it ends because of natural processes. I was not suggesting that things are only ever cured by doctors and pills, but that they can be cured by things that CAN be explained without having to resort to describing it as magic or a miracle.

I, personally, do not wish to control womankind anymore than I wish to control man. I don't wish to restrict free will as doing so is a sin. I simply believe that an unborn childs life is more important than that of a grown woman's: She's had her chance, the infant has not.

That's contradictory. If restricting free will is a sin, and anti-abortion laws restrict free will, then anti-abortion laws are a sin.

And, please don't call it an infant, or a child, as a foetus is neither of those. That's just the language of pro-life propaganda. It is NOT murder, they are NOT infants. Words like that are nothing but the language of propaganda.


In reply to Stan and Phalynx, I agree with you both, especially the nature of religion and faith. I have long argued that religion, as in the organised institutions, should not necessarily be linked to the actual experiences of personal faith. The 'evil-doings' of religious groups, and there is a long and painful history of such things, has much more to do with a small elite using the power of religion over a mass of people, then it has to do with a faith in a god / gods.

[Joshuamonkey]

I vote for Nalaris! I think wine back in Jesus times was more like grape juice, which is why some churches actually use grape juice for sacrament. (not much good for white shirts though.)

And of course we have a way to know God's moral decisions. What do you think the prophet is for? He is the main communication between Heavenly Father and the Earth.

[deadboy]

JM and Nalaris, well lets start with Nalaris first...... God is unchanging, therefore why should suddenly decide we cannot have alcohol because water becomes less bad for you? And then there is the main part of your no alcohol thing, that you become addicted to it. Wrong. Alcohol is extremely unaddictive. You cannot become addicted to it from casual drinking, only usually if there is background issues that lead to it being misused.

EDIT: Oh yes and I forgot JM, wine is not grape juice. That is a pretty stupid thing to say . As Nalaris said, wine was drunk as the alcohol was a good disinfectant.

EDIT 2: Oh yeah I've just thought up another thing. Jesus drank wine at the last supper. There is nothing wrong with wine

[Joshuamonkey]

Well, it doesn't really matter. Back then, you could have wine. Now you can't. Things change, and the prophet gives us the updates.

[Nixit]

Nalaris: What if the woman (who's pregnant) is 14 or even 13 and was raped? So she's had her chance now? She should just have the baby, and impair her own life?

And this is related, but are you a vegetarian, Nalaris?