Religious Autonomy of Thought

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
So you have always existed in a state of all knowing?

Did I say that? No. I do believe that am more than the physical body sitting at this computer.

All truth comes from within you and it has always been there, as you are eternal?

That's certainly possible. But in my current incarnation, I am not consciously aware of that. I do recognize a truth when I see it, though. For example, what I do know is that it hurts to find out that someone has lied to me, hurt me, stolen from me, disrespected me, and so on. Therefore, these things run contrary to my set of morals.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Basically you are saying that. You are saying that you are all knowing if it doesn't come from an outside source - that you, yourself, is the source of all truth.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Basically you are saying that. You are saying that you are all knowing if it doesn't come from an outside source - that you, yourself, is the source of all truth.

I'm saying my MORALS don't come from an outside source. That's all. Nothing about me being "all-knowing" (although I might be). Nothing about me being the source of all truth (although I might be). Those are YOUR words and you're trying to stuff them into my mouth. Good luck with that. There's a lot more to "the source of all truth" than a person's set of morals.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Boadicea

There is another side of the coin to consider. Given that in this dog eat dog world nice guys finish last, if folks did not believe in a higher power than themselves... if people of faith did not believe that by their actions they could save their life but lose their souls... many of these same people would have no reason to be good or kind or righteous and therefore would have every reason to do unto others before they do unto them. Would that be better?

They would have every reason to be good, kind, and "righteous". Their survival depends on it. That's where morals and ethics came from. The need for the human species to survive and thrive. Cooperation is key to the survival of any group. Without it, they don't survive, and they don't thrive. Therefore, they agree on a set of ordinances to govern behavior within the group.

I agree with you. I think most people would agree. There is strength in numbers and we can accomplish more together than alone... But not everyone sees it the way we do, with or without religion. There are even those who do realize the value others offer but will only exploit their value for their own selfish purposes. An obvious example: Slavery... Those plantation owners who needed the labor of others to enrich their own coffers. But they wanted to keep the profits for themselves -- NOT share it with those who created that profit through their labor. It's not much different today with corporations exploiting their labor for massive profits for a few at the top, and subsistence level wages for the laborers actually creating the profit. Those at the top could not realize those profits without the workers at the bottom, and yet they still claim, "I built that." Who needs morals and ethics when you have bought-and-paid-for politicians passing laws to benefit the few at the expense of the many? (That's a rhetorical question in case my sarcasm isn't obvious!)

That said...

I am an atheist. There are no deities as far as I'm concerned, but I am willing to entertain the idea of a creator(s), and Natural Law. The problem is, we have nothing but faith that either one exists.

I get that too. More than a little irony there, eh?

It's an occasional discussion between my son and I, who is an agnostic -- only because he cannot prove there is no God. (He is very literal in his thinking!) We've considered Natural Law/Rights from the Declaration of Independence's perspective that "these truths are self-evident," as well as the "of man vs. of God/nature" perspective. And while some seem self-evident, such as everyone needs water to survive so you don't get to dam the river upstream from me, or dump toxic waste into my drinking water, others are not so self-evident, especially in terms of how those rights are defined/protected... which gets us into the whole idea of "positive rights" that must be provided by govt (or someone). For example, do "property rights" (natural law) require that govt give us a home/land (positive rights)? How would that be done? Do we really want someone else assigning our home to us for our entire lives?

Natural Law raises as many questions/issues as it answers. But it is the foundation of our Constitution, and I think it deserves a national debate/discussion, especially as so many are trying to call a Constitutional Convention. If they succeed, what will be their guiding philosophy... their principles... their code of ethics? If not natural law and inalienable rights, then it's a free-for-all and we lose.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Basically you are saying that. You are saying that you are all knowing if it doesn't come from an outside source - that you, yourself, is the source of all truth.

I didn't get that at all from BH's words. I am not speaking for BH, but whether through faith or reason, our morals and guiding principles come from within. As a person of faith, I believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to and through my heart. So even though the Bible tells me it's okay to sell my daughter into slavery, my heart tells me that is wrong -- so I follow my heart. Even without faith, most people would agree, according to their own heart and conscience.

Isn't that really all any of us have to go on?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic Just FYI. Didn't want to talk about and/or over you!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic Just FYI. Didn't want to talk about and/or over you!

Go right on. I'm enjoying your thoughts. You make a great point about selling your daughter into slavery. You know better.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Klassified

My argument is not based on the books. It is purely logical -- moral truth cannot be subjective (from humans only) if it is to have meaning.

This statement seems to take no notice of the fact that for morals and divinity to exist then human beings must assume they are capable of comprehending\distinguishing them. They must also decide that the divinity they choose to follow is true divinity dispensing true morals. If we are capable of reaching these conclusions then we are also capable of deciding what is moral without divine intervention. You can't have it both ways. We are either capable of recognizing what is moral thus allowing us to assess morals independent of divinity or we are not capable thus unable to recognize it even if it comes from divinity.

There is a misconception in your post. There is nothing that says "hate gays." There is some scripture that says that homosexual sex is a sin. There is even more scripture that says that sex outside of wedlock is a sin. And there is scripture straight from both God and Christ that clearly say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

None of that says, "hate gays." In fact, over and over, we are enjoined to hate the sin and love the sinner. You are NOT your sin. Sin is an action, not a person.

If morals come from the Christian God he sets the WORST example ever..

I like this rant. It gives me the opportunity to ask: Do you really trust EVERY person who reads this to live by their own morals? Even sociopaths? And if not, where should they seek wisdom of that sort? And if they seek anything external, do you put faith in that source? Or, if its easier, could you just explain what morals we should all live by?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

I tried to address what you're referring to in my original post, but when I copied and pasted to and from my word processor app back into the reply box I pasted into the wrong section of what I had already written [in the post reply box], and made the post sloppy.

Basically you're saying that we're able to discover moral truth with or without God, but as I tried to say in my original post: morality is something that pertains only to the will of sentience. What that means is that some sentient being, who is divine, must be the source of moral truth, otherwise, it would mean that something that isn't sentient would be the creator of moral principles, principles over will, and that doesn't work.

A non-sentient form cannot be the creator of objective moral truth, or any truth, if it doesn't have will of its own - truth must be from a sentient being, that is just the nature of truth - truth is awareness - a concept - a conception, and not just any conception, or sentient being, but one who is, himself, said truth. If truth is not a sentient being, then we're all just playing make believe; we're all liars; we're all subjective story tellers, and nothing said has meaning, or really matters.

There is just no way out of it: either we're all full of crap and nothing matters, or there is truth, and some of us know some things about him/her/it.

In Christian doctrine, Yeshua, that is, Jesus, is Truth. He is literally the light/form we see. He is the image(Body/Son) of awareness (Father) and Father is the awareness of the Spirit (Holy Ghost.)

As in, my words here are the image(body) of my awareness(soul) and my soul is the awareness of my heart/desire(spirit). My awareness is of my desire, and my image thereof, is my body.

These words to you, and your words to me, are the image of our desire/spirit as we see them. That is where these words, your words, and all of reality comes from...

Language, evolution, change, manifestation, birth, action, forces, all of it, sentience, all of it, all of reality, is "good" concept (re)production. Your words to me are the image of your spirit/desire as you are aware of it/as you interpret it. You were trying to reproduce, into me, the truth, your image, as you see it, because it is "good" - awareness reproduction - conception - the breath of life - you name it.

Have a look at these two posts and maybe you can see the basis of my argument: post1 and post2

a reply to: Boadicea

You have confused what (s)he was expressing. (S)he was expressing that truth was something innate to herself/himself, that it was something that didn't come from an outside source to dwell/exist within him/her.

More, you are assuming that the heart of man is naturally good, and that the conscience knows right from wrong without having learned it. Instead, you should think of the conscience as the perception (the seeing) of your concepts of right and wrong (morality) and that those concepts were learned - they were conceived; bore through the heart (desire of the spirit) into the body and then (re)imaged by the mind.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Boadicea

You have confused what (s)he was expressing. (S)he was expressing that truth was something innate to herself/himself, that it was something that didn't come from an outside source to dwell/exist within him/her.

That may be, but I think BH would be the only one who could tell me how, since they are her words. I can't speak for her, so I'm not trying to. I'm just saying that it's not much different than how I receive and process information and experiences and come to conclusions of morality, but I attribute it to a divine power speaking to and through me.

More, you are assuming that the heart of man is naturally good, and that the conscience knows right from wrong without having learned it. Instead, you should think of the conscience as the perception (the seeing) of your concepts of right and wrong (morality) and that those concepts were learned - they were conceived; bore through the heart (desire of the spirit) into the body and then (re)imaged by the mind.

Yes, the heart is wicked and can betray us. As Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." In this sense, the weakness of the flesh can include any of our human failings -- physical, mental, even emotional.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
You have confused what (s)he was expressing. (S)he was expressing that truth was something innate to herself/himself, that it was something that didn't come from an outside source to dwell/exist within him/her.

No, YOU have confused what I expressed. Go back and read it for yourself. I said NOTHING about the truth being innate to myself, I said my MORALS come from within. You're making this stuff up. I suggest you reread my posts, because you are very confused about what I said.

a reply to: and14263

Thats a pretty general statement kind of lumps all the people together lol.
Im a christian but not what i would call a good one i guess lol
But i know muslims who dont hate jews .
And i know christians that dont hate gays.
What the bible says about gays is any man that lays with a man the way he lays with a women shall be put to death.
But it doesnt say to hate them you know lol................I know im not trying to make thier argumenty here lol.

I think its important to remember the new testament and the words of Jesus Christ and he sums it all up no room for misunderstanding here .

Love thy neighbor as you would love thy self.

Love thy enemy.

And if a man strikes you on one side of your cheek ...then turn the other cheek.

There pretty simple cut and dry rules and if we cant follow those rules then we are in big trouble .........
oh we dont follow those rules ..well we are in big trouble.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I agree I think morals came with our evolution.
The more social we got we understood we had to be good to each other to continue being social beings.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Basically you're saying that we're able to discover moral truth with or without God, but as I tried to say in my original post: morality is something that pertains only to the will of sentience. What that means is that some sentient being, who is divine, must be the source of moral truth, otherwise, it would mean that something that isn't sentient would be the creator of moral principles, principles over will, and that doesn't work.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's either one way or the other, not both. You're making a leap from "it must come from some sentient being" to "that sentient thing must be divine" without any logical argument why. Sentient does not mean divine.

If I can distinguish moral truth then I should be able to also formulate it independently. If I cannot distinguish moral truth then a divine being could hit me on the head with clay tablets and I'd never know that those ten commandments were some kind of moral framework. If the former is true then we can choose either an established set of moral truths or devise our own. If the latter is true all moral truth would be based on blind faith and luck.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

You are not seeing your own argument through.

By formulating you mean creating it? As in, you can create objective morality which is objectively true for every person past or present? By your own will you formulate objective truth?

If by formulate, you mean perceive, or see, then sure, but by seeing truth, it doesn't make you the creator of its objectivity - it just makes you an interpreter, a formulator of images/form which preexisted you [becoming aware of it].

In so many words, I have already explained why objective morality would require divinity: Truth must be foundational. True must be true whether a human knows it or not. Truth must himself be sentient, and he must be above subjectivity...

Only divinity, a direct extension of God, can be the truth/form of all knowledge/awareness.

You understand that objective morality is universal, right? Human's moral codes are code for all humans, otherwise, it is not objective.

If it is not objective, then no one is bound by it, and one man's morals is just as good as the other's.

What you're likely thinking of is not morals, but politics or ethos. Like taboos or formalities and customs.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

You've clarified sufficiently. I understand what you're saying now. I think I was coming at the idea from the opposite side, perception of reality versus an absolute which you are discussing. A slight misinterpretation on the definition on my end. I'm can see no argument against your idea now. I'm disinclined to believe in any objective moral truth so I don't have a horse in the race, but I'm glad to understand your premise. Thanks for staying with it to the end.

You can't blame religious people, the public water supplies have been fluoridated for a long, long time.


In a perfect world, if there was no evil, then there wouldn't be even the concept of Morals. A perfect world, this is not.