Are religious folks ethically challenged?

Originally posted by kazmall
simply you are way off my friend
we do not turn to books to tell us what to do, it isnt hard to tell your ethics have been challenged and your path been altered
we turn to these books as guidance, when you find your guidance would you sacrifice it for anyone or any post,
i put it to you that all your ethics that you think come from the dirt originated in some form of religious governance, religion does not impose a way of life it is a choice, obviuosly your choice is too simple and your train of thought even simpler
WHEN MAN DENIES GOD, HE IN TURN DENIES MAN
whether you belive in god or simply the rules your government hands out like its a charity to fix lifes problems, YOU BELIEVE, AND YOULL BLEED FOR YOUR BELIEF (SOLDIER OR EXTREMIST), dont deny others on what they believe or you may find yourself bleeding forever.

I usually don't respond to threats and if I do it's just a one-liner.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Thanks for your post. You brought up an interesting point.

I'm just a lowly human and obviously not a god, but I have a question ...

If I was god and in a position to write/transmit a Bible, Quran, or Thora you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be as precise as godly possible. There would not be a quark of a doubt about any single comma or punctuation mark. The meaning of every sentence would be crystal clear to everybody. There would be zero and I mean 0.0 ambiguity. Unfortunately, those texts are shrouded in mystery and went through countless revisions and edits.

I always found that a little suspect

reply to post by crazydaisy


Thank you. I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to OP:

On the whole, and strictly from my experience, I have found that morality and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with religion, one way or the other.

I would argue that all religions try to instill a sense of morality and ethics. You're basically saying that dogs don't bark ...

Your name is "All Is One"

Yes.

but the title of your thread is all about pointing out differences, and suggesting that people different from yourself are inferior.

No, I was just asking a question, a pretty obvious one at that. Your response shows me that I hit a nerve there.

I think you're full of it.

And so are you; everybody poops

edit: "quotes"

[edit on 22-8-2010 by AllIsOne]

I am a spiritualist/pagan myself very eclectic. Even after all the crap most religious people put on me, most of them try really hard to have a moral compass that is in good working order.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Thanks for your post. You brought up an interesting point.

I'm just a lowly human and obviously not a god, but I have a question ...

If I was god and in a position to write/transmit a Bible, Quran, or Thora you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be as precise as godly possible. There would not be a quark of a doubt about any single comma or punctuation mark. The meaning of every sentence would be crystal clear to everybody. There would be zero and I mean 0.0 ambiguity. Unfortunately, those texts are shrouded in mystery and went through countless revisions and edits.

I always found that a little suspect

But how do you write something that is understood by everybody? We can't even do this in our own time period. Different languages, cultures, identities. These inhibit the ability to provide clear and concise messages, they are road blocks of communication. Now compound that issue with 4,000+ years of different cultures, ways of speaking, imbued understanding and general culture clash.

Even a god would be unable to write for everybody, in one book, for all of eternity.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by State of Mind

 

When you're a little calmer you should try to grasp what I was trying to get across. If you still don't get it call me (U2U).

Ciao

I was and still am completely calm. Hell, when I posted that I was sitting there with my feet propped up and eating cookies. Was there a little too much heat in the kitchen for you? Your condescending remarks are a little rude, but that and the suggestion for me to u2u you rather than just discuss it on the thread just show me that you are a little insecure and don't really know what your talking about, and your attempting to project that onto those that disagree with you. Just some advice.

These threads are getting old.

First off, a religion is never to blame. It might be a catalyst for an action, but it's not responsible.

Human nature is.

Take away religion and humans will place the blame for their actions on something else. "Oh I did it for the money". Catch my drift?

A religious person is no more inclined to be ethically challenged then that of a non religious person. If you have a bad character, what you believe or don't believe in doesn't really have much to say now does it?

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Thanks for your post. You brought up an interesting point.

I'm just a lowly human and obviously not a god, but I have a question ...

If I was god and in a position to write/transmit a Bible, Quran, or Thora you can bet your bottom dollar that I would be as precise as godly possible. There would not be a quark of a doubt about any single comma or punctuation mark. The meaning of every sentence would be crystal clear to everybody. There would be zero and I mean 0.0 ambiguity. Unfortunately, those texts are shrouded in mystery and went through countless revisions and edits.

I always found that a little suspect

But how do you write something that is understood by everybody? We can't even do this in our own time period. Different languages, cultures, identities. These inhibit the ability to provide clear and concise messages, they are road blocks of communication. Now compound that issue with 4,000+ years of different cultures, ways of speaking, imbued understanding and general culture clash.

Even a god would be unable to write for everybody, in one book, for all of eternity.

1+1=2

It can be done.

No to religion.

Yes to Jesus.

Yes to knowing right from wrong.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Why do so many people rely on books (mostly the Bible, the Quran or the Torah) to guide them in ethical matters? If you had a strong sense of what is right and wrong you wouldn't need that kind of a crutch.

I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other. Now, do I live a murderous, philandering, evil life? No, I don't! My internal compass tells me what to do.

Are religious folks missing that internal point of reference therefore they need a book to tell them?

I think you are wrong in every sense, but I don't want to discourage you in moving forward in your journey.

We all read books and take guidance from them, it isn't just Torah, Bible and the Quran, there are philosophies written books which people revolve their lives around, there are systems in books which people use to govern their societies.

These are all books, written in the past, and needs more processing in the future.

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Why do so many people rely on books (mostly the Bible, the Quran or the Torah) to guide them in ethical matters? If you had a strong sense of what is right and wrong you wouldn't need that kind of a crutch.

How does one obtain this strong sense of what is right and what is wrong? As a child did you inherently know that it was wrong to steal another kid's lunch when you saw they had a chocolate egg that you wanted? Did you have a strong sense of morality when you threw that acorn at a passing car in your youth?

I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other. Now, do I live a murderous, philandering, evil life? No, I don't! My internal compass tells me what to do.

Agnosticism is great, but the downside is you do not really need to stand by your convictions. It allows you to avoid discussing issues within a restricted framework - which can result in you being a little too open minded at times.

Are religious folks missing that internal point of reference therefore they need a book to tell them?

This is a rather big generalisation. In some cases, yes it seems some people who follow religion need a book to tell them what is right and what is wrong. However, there are plenty of intelligent, perceptive individuals who choose to follow religion, despite not needing to use it as their moral compass.

[edit on 23/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

The words "moral compass" is wrong in every sense of the word. We have in no other order tried to either obtain or decline our sense of right and wrong, but ALL was taught.

We may be wrong in all concepts, it all boils down to what YOU choose, and your acceptance towards responsibility. We can (if you except) a religion to follow "those" rules, but if you choose to except the latter (agnosticism) you would have based it on excepting either or.

"We" either or excepted our true senses, we cannot blame one or the other, we choose our own path, we can either except it or choose to take a path that we may not have an answer to in the end.

Our path is our own. We do NOT go as a group, We do not go as a congregation, WE do not go as the word of god, or his representations.

WE go as ourselves. Our fear isn't whether or not we get judged, its whether we get judged along with the guy we disagreed with.

GET IT TOGETHER! Your choice is your own.

I don't think you understand. I said PEOPLE are racist or they are not. I did not say babies, and I think most intelligent people would gather that my post was referring to adults.

If you are a racist, then you can use religion or science as a platform to further your racist agenda.

Try a little harder next time, and I'm sure that little hamster wheel might start turning...

reply to post by State of Mind


And you are saying that I'm rude

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Why do so many people rely on books (mostly the Bible, the Quran or the Torah) to guide them in ethical matters? If you had a strong sense of what is right and wrong you wouldn't need that kind of a crutch.

How does one obtain this strong sense of what is right and what is wrong? As a child did you inherently know that it was wrong to steal another kid's lunch when you saw they had a chocolate egg that you wanted? Did you have a strong sense of morality when you threw that acorn at a passing car in your youth?

I was influenced by my parents and by logic. I behave towards others as I expect them to behave towards me.

Yes, I knew that stealing was wrong. I never threw an acorn at a car. It was a small pebble.

I've come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only honest way to roll. We simply don't have sufficient data to let the scale tip in one way or the other. Now, do I live a murderous, philandering, evil life? No, I don't! My internal compass tells me what to do

.

Agnosticism is great, but the downside is you do not really need to stand by your convictions. It allows you to avoid discussing issues within a restricted framework - which can result in you being a little too open minded at times.

My conviction is that the existence of a deity is beyond our knowledge. I'm taking a stand and many do not agree with me. And I'm obviously discussing the issue with you. What am I open minded about?

Are religious folks missing that internal point of reference therefore they need a book to tell them?

This is a rather big generalisation. In some cases, yes it seems some people who follow religion need a book to tell them what is right and what is wrong. However, there are plenty of intelligent, perceptive individuals who choose to follow religion, despite not needing to use it as their moral compass.
[edit on 23/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

It's not a statement presented as fact: I'm only asking a question. I don't see the correlation between intelligence and morality? As it is so painfully obvious when you study the jokers on wall street.

reply to post by AllIsOne

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate it. Unfortunately, your opening statement is pure assumption. We are carbon based living beings. That's all I need to know, and I guess all you "know" as well. Santa is also a spiritual being ...

Oh and your opening post and you assuming that are carbon based is not an assumption? Hardly..... you say this because it is relative to what you know and have experienced thus far.

On the other hand ...having meditated a sought God for the last 10 years thousands if not hundreds of thousands of hours in meditation ...to come to find out that I remember pre-existing before being in a body ....it was a remembrance.

So it puts to shame for me anyone or anything that says we are only bodies.

I'll tell you what. Let's take 1 person, doesn't have to be you, but one person who believes similar to what you believe and have the meditate for an hour a day for a year ....I guarantee you that they're morals/ethics will change and will become similar to that of a Christian/Buddhist,Taoist etc. I would bet you a million dollars on that one...

However one who is not meditating ...is simply being programmed by the outer world, by media, peers, parents ...and really doesn't have they're own set of morals/ethics but simply borrow from what ever is available around them.

2 key differences.

1. A non meditator will have different morals/ethics based on century theu lived in peers, parents, media, culture.
2. A meditator will have, for the most part, similar ethics/morals regardless of any of the above factors.

morals change over time, except the "bad end of the scale" things like murder.

Back in the day marijuana was seen as very bad. Now we see many more ppl shrugging their shoulders about it.

Sexual issues such as age of consent, the use of condoms etc.

Christians do not share a hive mind on such issues. If you'd define Christianity as those beliefs held by all Christians, I think you end up with this as the totality of Christianity:

1. There is a God;
2. A man named Jesus is important.

Beyond those two statements, there are plenty of assertions Christians disagree upon. Of course, for any given Christian, there are often a few assertions that s/he thinks Christians need to agree on, leading to a situation where Christians are constantly accusing one another of being non-Christians.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Nope, we don't need it as an internal compass, it just helps us make sure our internal compass is facing true north.

There are plenty of non-religious people and religious people who do evil things but ethically believe they are doing what is right. Without a moral standard to go by, rules and guidelines which apply to everyone, there can be no agreement on what is right or wrong because somewhere, somebody is going to disagree and call evil what you call good and vice-versa.

Now sense there is disagreement, it comes to a majority rules on the subject. If "Johny" thinks running around in the buff and relieving himself in people's yards like an animal is ok and natural, who are we to tell him he is wrong? It becomes a "well common sense does" or "for the good of the community" or "everybody knows that is wrong."

Obviously, not everyone knows it is wrong because "Johny" thinks its right. The good of the community or the good of the whole leads down a very dark scene where socialism is enforced and those who cant contribute to society are killed off because they take up space and resources. And who is to say what common sense is? Majority vote does not change right or wrong.

Hopefully that helps answer why we choose to use a book to guide our moral compasses. We see no error in the ethics taught via the scriptures and they provide an absolute authority to which we can judge all people, without having to worry about the post-modern mindset of "whatever works for you" and flimsy, ever-changing ethics depending on the situation.

Now, I do understand your point and it is sad that we have put ourselves in this situation, as I know a lot of people who use the church as a place to raise their kids and teach them ethics, but want nothing to do with the faith that comes with it, the very thing that gives the ethics taught in scripture their foundation.

I know there are ethical agnostics and atheists who stick to their guns on what is right and wrong and dont let the situation influence their position. In fact, many who claim to be religious are just as flimsy as those who have no foundation for why they have the ethics that they do.

For me, I find that the ethics taught in the Bible are the best and am proud to have scripture as the foundation for what I believe to be right and wrong. The ethics taught in the Bible should not be too hard for anyone to accept in the first place, so it isn't like we need to lean on it to know what is right and wrong int the first place. I mean, it all boils down to loving God and Loving people. The loving God part would take a bit longer to explain, but Christian ethics should be best described as putting other people's needs above your own. Love people, the perfect ethical rule to live by. Christ himself said that all the law and all of the prophets find their foundation in that simple rule.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Mykahel]

I can see your point, but what does it hurt?

If everyone followed what is taught in the Bible, the world would be a better place to live.

There's nothing wrong with believing in something that is good for the whole of mankind.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Yes. I did say you are rude. Telling me to "try a little harder, and I'll get it next time" is very condescending. So I threw it back. And you told me to relax, which I guess means you can't take your own medicine?
ETA: I don't think the bible is the only thing most christians use as a moral compass. Its more like a set of guidelines that can offer advice, direction, and comfort.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by State of Mind]