Religion

[Stan]

Stan: I thank you for consistently coming to these discussions with a voice of tolerance and understanding. I used to have a very dim, and frankly predjudiced view about religious people, and deemed all forms of religion, even personal faith, to be an inherently bad thing in contemporary life. It has been through talking with and meeting people like yourself that I have lost that arrogance.

Thanks. I appreciate that. This comment, honestly, makes my day.

[formerly known as hf]

morality and ethics change dramatically between humans, over time and space.

I tend to disagree with that.

Ok, I'm sure it was this very thread where I argued that morality and ethics are highly contextual. I've certainly banged on about it before. But I'll have another shot at it I guess.

Morality changes over space. Obvious example: The majority of Americans see gun-owning as a right, and that infringing it would be morally wrong. Us Brits generally see that attitude as lunatic.

Generally, we consider canibalism wrong - there are still some, albeit small, societies which consider it perfectly ok.

Wife-beating is thankfully illegal in many countries - there are some where it is not, and is considered normal, or even the morally 'right' thing to do.

Ethics also change over time. You do not have to look very far back in the history of Europe or America to find a time when 'Black' people were considered to be inferior, based solely upon racial characteristics. Oppression was seen not only as ok, but a necessity for dealing with these 'barbarian' people. Thankfully, that has changed.

It was common in Victorian Britain to employ child labour, now it is seen as very morally wrong.
Even in the contemporary world, child labour is seen as wrong by some, and as right, or a necessity for others.

We can also go way back to Ancient Roman and Greek societies, which had some very different conceptions of morality.



Ethics and Morality are very specific to time and place. They rely on context. There are no universal norms of morality between all humans, over all times and spaces.

There are some accepted norms of morality amongst, say, western, Christian society. But to assume that those morals are somehow inherently human is deeply arrogant, as it ignores the reality that there are multiple, and conflicting moralities and ethics within human thought.

[west]

Because so much sex, in the long term, makes you less likely to love and more likely to always think on the carnal aspect of a relationship. This is my opinion.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with that; while I think it's noble and admirable to refrain from sex until you've found what you believe to be "True Love" (or marriage, whichever), having sex does not decrease your ability to love. Otherwise you'd see married couples who love each other less and less as time goes on... oh wait.

Personally, I've had my share of sexual experiences with people I didn't love, and who didn't love me, but that doesn't mean I didn't care for them, and that doesn't mean I am incapable of loving someone now. In fact, I'm more in love now than I have been in five or six years, since well before I became sexually active at all.

Your mileage may vary.

This has been "more than you needed to know about me" time with west.

[Stan]

I agree ethics change, but right and wrong doesn't change. Society will adopt and embrace whatever society itself will allow. I believe this is because we all have a bent toward immorality not because morality is changing.

Of course, that's the Christian view.

[Valsum]

Ok, ok. HF you're right, morale and ethics vary with space and time, you've given some good examples, but there are always some basic things (like...killing your father is bad, marrying your sister is bad, etc) which are what I meant with my disagreement.

And west, that is great, really. But I still think there'd be a better society if sex wasn't so ever-present, so liberated, so "libertine". Because it's caused a separation of love and sex we catholics don't like

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I agree ethics change, but right and wrong doesn't change.

But who determines what is right and wrong?

Over time, different people and different beliefs and religions seem to dictate that in society. With those changing entities, right and wrong changes over time as well.

[Stan]

God determines what's right and wrong.

Who interprets here on earth is another matter (Christian, Muslims, Hindu, etc). But ultimately, God decides what's right and what's wrong.

[the_antisocial_hermit]

If that is who one believes in. I should've said, outside of beliefs and religion, who decides?

And, for the record, I'm Christian and believe in God.. but I believe as much in the strength and conviction of a person's beliefs. Belief is a powerful tool. I've heard accounts of people near death in hospitals that had churches praying for them and they got better. I've heard accounts of dying people in Native American cultures undergoing a ceremony pleading to multiple gods by their people who came back from the brink of death. It's not who you pray to, it's how much you believe in who you pray to.

[west]

And west, that is great, really. But I still think there'd be a better society if sex wasn't so ever-present, so liberated, so "libertine". Because it's caused a separation of love and sex we catholics don't like

I agree. Sex is an obsession in our culture, one that is increasingly cheapened and perverted (I don't mean the act itself necessarily; I mean the urge for it is twisted from something good, as a closeness between lovers for example, to something bad--a commodity roughly on par with junk food and televised sports) by its use in advertising, tittillating TV shows, what-have-you. Sex is a wonderful thing, and I hold it in high value. Our obsession with it (and even those that would repress it are obsessed with it) cheapens us. Lives need to be balanced, and in any life if some urge takes its hold, be it urge for food, sex, drink, drugs, what-have-you, you are off-balance. That's why gluttony is considered a sin.

[Stan]

If that is who one believes in. I should've said, outside of beliefs and religion, who decides?

And, for the record, I'm Christian and believe in God.. but I believe as much in the strength and conviction of a person's beliefs. Belief is a powerful tool. I've heard accounts of people near death in hospitals that had churches praying for them and they got better. I've heard accounts of dying people in Native American cultures undergoing a ceremony pleading to multiple gods by their people who came back from the brink of death. It's not who you pray to, it's how much you believe in who you pray to.

I've heard those accounts too. I don't discount them. That's why I say who interprets what's right and wrong is not what I'm addressing.

What I mean is this. If God exists He has a nature. That nature is independent of human desire. He is what He is whether we agree with Him or not. If Jesus is not God's son then I'm wrong about my beliefs. Me believing it isn't the cause of it to be true. Nor does my disbelief of something make it true. It is either true or it isn't.

So, if God created this world He has made sets of rules. He has Laws of Physics, Laws of Chemistry, Laws of Electromagnetism. He also has laws of right and wrong. These laws like the laws of physics etc are observable. The problem is that on earth there is no perfect good to observe as a "control". So, it isn't possible to prove the laws.

I believe God summarized all His laws of right and wrong into one simple phrase and 2 simple laws when asked by Religous Authorities of his day.

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Jack Dudeman]

I'm sorry, but you're determining what's right and wrong by using the bible. Not everyone believes what is in the bible.

I think we all know basic good from bad. As West said earlier, in summary: Live your life according to the golden rule, and there will be peace.

I think that we can all agree that rampant promiscuity is wrong, but trying to determine what gender is right and wrong to love is based on nothing besides religious beliefs.

[Stan]

I never argued it wasn't religious belief. Of course it is.

I don't think you're getting my point. If I'm wrong I'm wrong. If you're wrong you're wrong.

I realize there are people that believe there is no right or wrong. I believe they're wrong.

[Mykey]

The matchless message, is pleasant to me

[west]

So if it feels good to kill someone, you should kill them? That way lies monsters.

[Mykey]

It is simply excellent idea