Welcome to Gaia! ::


5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
zone_of_reen84

That's true. But I need to know why some people believe that morality is impossible to live by without a God that they serve and worship. In addition, I made this thread to discuss the effects of theistic religion to the morality of individuals.


Inscriven
In Christian theology it is because that humanity is considered completely corrupted and broken. Humanity cannot save itself or be expected to act in a way to restore itself to goodness. Humanity had also disrespected and disobeyed God to the point where absolutely no sacrifice would be good enough to atone for their transgressions.


Does that imply that we have become a race where we choose to do bad instead of good? Maybe a majority? And does that mean that we are moving closer to a point where we had become hopeless as humankind? More so, I am wondering if the restoration can be achieved even without the intervention of God.

Inscriven
The level of sacrifice being so completely out of humanity's capability is the reason for the existence of jesus, his passion, death, etc etc is now the reason why humanity now has a chance at forgiveness and connection with God. Jesus' and the disciple's teachings are seen as the only way to attain a level of holiness and purity required for "being good".


I give respect to Jesus, because He taught values that are much needed today. Somehow, I feel that Our humanity has declined. In the news, crime rates increase yearly. It's obvious that we need someone like Jesus who teach us the right ways. However, do we need to create a religion out of Jesus' teachings? His teachings are clear: LOVE. Why do we need a structured religion in this case, Christianity, when we can just follow His commandment: Love God, Love Each Other. I just see that religion has turned into a sort of institution in which a hierarchy exists and the point of the commandment has diminished. To love is pretty basic, it's a common language that people anywhere in the world understand and practice.

I'm also concerned because, some religions seem to create confusion and conflicts that make us destroy each other.

Inscriven
Because of their belief in a broken humanity, this makes them as a whole fairly intolerant of other perpsectives because "there isn't supposed to be" any other ones. And since Christianity has been the absolute dominant religion in the west for centuries it is completely embedded into the western psyche.


I understand. It's because Christians believe that the only way they can become faithful followers is through accepting Jesus in their lives. I see nothing wrong in that but still, we can still be moral-conscious individuals without an organized religion.
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Right: respect for others especially parents, kindness, humility, responsibility, accountability, honesty, discipline, compassion

Wrong: opposite of the above


Define "respect for others".


Respect for others is recognizing that they're equal to us in terms of the rights that we have as human beings. It is dealing with people with a sense of caution because we respect their rights as individuals. We recognize that others might have different cultures that we must also acknowledge. Recognize that all of us have unique value systems that shouldn't be held against us unless it's a criminal act.


What constitutes a criminal act?


According to The Lectric Law Library, it is:

"CRIMINAL ACT

Any crime, including an act, omission, or possession under the laws of the United States or a State or unit of general local government, which poses a substantial threat of personal injury, notwithstanding that by reason of age, insanity, intoxication or otherwise the person engaging in the act, omission, or possession was legally incapable of committing a crime."


Does it further define "substantial"?

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Right: respect for others especially parents, kindness, humility, responsibility, accountability, honesty, discipline, compassion

Wrong: opposite of the above


Define "respect for others".


Respect for others is recognizing that they're equal to us in terms of the rights that we have as human beings. It is dealing with people with a sense of caution because we respect their rights as individuals. We recognize that others might have different cultures that we must also acknowledge. Recognize that all of us have unique value systems that shouldn't be held against us unless it's a criminal act.


What constitutes a criminal act?


According to The Lectric Law Library, it is:

"CRIMINAL ACT

Any crime, including an act, omission, or possession under the laws of the United States or a State or unit of general local government, which poses a substantial threat of personal injury, notwithstanding that by reason of age, insanity, intoxication or otherwise the person engaging in the act, omission, or possession was legally incapable of committing a crime."


Does it further define "substantial"?


No.
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84
Lucky~9~Lives
zone_of_reen84


Respect for others is recognizing that they're equal to us in terms of the rights that we have as human beings. It is dealing with people with a sense of caution because we respect their rights as individuals. We recognize that others might have different cultures that we must also acknowledge. Recognize that all of us have unique value systems that shouldn't be held against us unless it's a criminal act.


What constitutes a criminal act?


According to The Lectric Law Library, it is:

"CRIMINAL ACT

Any crime, including an act, omission, or possession under the laws of the United States or a State or unit of general local government, which poses a substantial threat of personal injury, notwithstanding that by reason of age, insanity, intoxication or otherwise the person engaging in the act, omission, or possession was legally incapable of committing a crime."


Does it further define "substantial"?


No.


Okay. Thanks for answering.

Zealot

zone_of_reen84
I'd say it's not necessary for individuals who already know right from wrong. We already have the initiative AND the conscience to make good choices and live at peace with our spirituality and our humanity for the rest of our days. In other words, I think having moral values is enough. We don't need certain religions as a lifestyle. I mean it doesn't have to be that. We can become good people without organized religion, specifically the ones who try to have control over other people's lives.
I agree that religion isnt a particularly reliable source of moral truth. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of absolute standard by which right and wrong can be judged. Can you demonstrate this to be true?

Hilarious Lunatic

You don't need religion to be a good person.

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Dieu des hommes
zone_of_reen84
I'd say it's not necessary for individuals who already know right from wrong. We already have the initiative AND the conscience to make good choices and live at peace with our spirituality and our humanity for the rest of our days. In other words, I think having moral values is enough. We don't need certain religions as a lifestyle. I mean it doesn't have to be that. We can become good people without organized religion, specifically the ones who try to have control over other people's lives.
I agree that religion isnt a particularly reliable source of moral truth. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of absolute standard by which right and wrong can be judged. Can you demonstrate this to be true?



EDITED:
Yes. Since birth, we possess inherent rights that is based on what the UN General Assembly agreed with. I'm talking about our human rights. In connection to that, this declaration would be proof that we have a sense of what is right and wrong.

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Fullmetal Gurren Titan
You don't need religion to be a good person.


Exactly.

Zealot

zone_of_reen84

EDITED:
Yes. Since birth, we possess inherent rights that is based on what the UN General Assembly agreed with. I'm talking about our human rights. In connection to that, this declaration would be proof that we have a sense of what is right and wrong.
So the standards are relative to the UN General Assembly? In which case they're not absolute. I don't see why I should take them as a moral authority. This declaration is only evidence that humans generally want to guide other peoples behaviour in ways that are preferable to them. It's hardly evidence that there is some kind of inherent moral truth or that human rights are absolute.

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Dieu des hommes
zone_of_reen84

EDITED:
Yes. Since birth, we possess inherent rights that is based on what the UN General Assembly agreed with. I'm talking about our human rights. In connection to that, this declaration would be proof that we have a sense of what is right and wrong.



So the standards are relative to the UN General Assembly? In which case they're not absolute. I don't see why I should take them as a moral authority. This declaration is only evidence that humans generally want to guide other peoples behaviour in ways that are preferable to them. It's hardly evidence that there is some kind of inherent moral truth or that human rights are absolute.


I'm focusing more on when I said that we have a sense of right and wrong. Is it possible that they use that sense when they were in the process of reaching an agreement about the human rights declaration? And is it possible that they discussed the rights of humans because they saw the need to establish a moral people? About the absolute right, why do we entertain that notion, it doesn't seem to have much effect on how we behave toward each other.

Zealot

zone_of_reen84
I'm focusing more on when I said that we have a sense of right and wrong. Is it possible that they use that sense when they were in the process of reaching an agreement about the human rights declaration? And is it possible that they discussed the rights of humans because they saw the need to establish a moral people? About the absolute right, why do we entertain that notion, it doesn't seem to have much effect on how we behave toward each other.
Any form of prescriptive statement can influence human behaviour. People have been influenced into dying and killing based on prescriptive moral statement- so it would be simply untrue to say that the concept of absolute right has no effect on how we behave towards each other.

I do not think humans have some kind of inherent sense of right and wrong. The majority of us have an inherent capability for empathy certainly, and we're also are born into established law and cultural systems. This is where our sense of what is appropriate behaviour comes from, and I'd dare try to equate or reduce any of these into some kind of property of goodness or wrongness. It's important to note that this doesn't always lead us to the liberal philosophies that dominate contemporary ethics. Acceptance of this is more a cultural phenomenon than it is reflective of an inherent human sense of morality.

Magical Investigator

22,875 Points
  • Bookworm 100
  • Pine Perfection 250
  • Forum Regular 100
People just forget about the concept of empathy, I suppose. Which is odd, given that it's a common thing in most mammals. The ability to recognize one of our own as akin to us (or s**t, even those who aren't like us, as like us). We sort of have this culture of selfishness. So, with the Abrahamic religions, you get an authority figure telling you, "Don't do this, or you, personally, will suffer."

And so people harbor under the delusion that what happens to them is far more important than anything that could happen to others under the weight of their own actions. "I murdered fifty people, but it's okay because I've asked God for forgiveness."

So there's that. And people sort of have to relearn things that should be taken as an obvious fact. I mean, the Golden Rule is even in the Bible. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

It's still an appeal to selfish interests, but it's close, at least.

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Dieu des hommes
zone_of_reen84
I'm focusing more on when I said that we have a sense of right and wrong. Is it possible that they use that sense when they were in the process of reaching an agreement about the human rights declaration? And is it possible that they discussed the rights of humans because they saw the need to establish a moral people? About the absolute right, why do we entertain that notion, it doesn't seem to have much effect on how we behave toward each other.


Any form of prescriptive statement can influence human behaviour. People have been influenced into dying and killing based on prescriptive moral statement- so it would be simply untrue to say that the concept of absolute right has no effect on how we behave towards each other.

I do not think humans have some kind of inherent sense of right and wrong. The majority of us have an inherent capability for empathy certainly, and we're also are born into established law and cultural systems. This is where our sense of what is appropriate behaviour comes from, and I'd dare try to equate or reduce any of these into some kind of property of goodness or wrongness. It's important to note that this doesn't always lead us to the liberal philosophies that dominate contemporary ethics. Acceptance of this is more a cultural phenomenon than it is reflective of an inherent human sense of morality.


I am agreeing with what you said on what you implied about morality being part of the process of establishing a standard for a community to be able to live more or less harmoniously.

First off I want to say that I will listen to what every poster will say and take it into consideration.

An absolute right is difficult for me to think about. It makes more sense to me that an absolute right doesn't exist. We can't have a universal absolute right. We're unique, and to say that we would agree with a universal right, seems impossible. It's still something that we're wanting to learn more about, but now it's still kept in the dark in that we can't resolve its truth. I believe it's more helpful to think that right and wrong depend upon a person's perspective of it. Then, that must mean that each individual may have their own perceptions of right and wrong, which means we have our unique morals, values, or, subscribe to religions that coincide with our beliefs regarding morality.

5,200 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Alchemy Level 1 100
  • Dressed Up 200
Xiam
People just forget about the concept of empathy, I suppose. Which is odd, given that it's a common thing in most mammals. The ability to recognize one of our own as akin to us (or s**t, even those who aren't like us, as like us). We sort of have this culture of selfishness. So, with the Abrahamic religions, you get an authority figure telling you, "Don't do this, or you, personally, will suffer."

And so people harbor under the delusion that what happens to them is far more important than anything that could happen to others under the weight of their own actions. "I murdered fifty people, but it's okay because I've asked God for forgiveness."

So there's that. And people sort of have to relearn things that should be taken as an obvious fact. I mean, the Golden Rule is even in the Bible. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

It's still an appeal to selfish interests, but it's close, at least.



I guess our complexities as thinking beings somehow complicate ourselves, most of us I bet lose values we possessed in childhood, we become more selfish and proud. The whole empathy scenario only appears when big events happen that call for empathy like natural calamities with hundreds of victims. Well, maybe except for a few people who always are willing to help other people who are in distress.

Liberal Sex Symbol

zone_of_reen84


Does that imply that we have become a race where we choose to do bad instead of good? Maybe a majority? And does that mean that we are moving closer to a point where we had become hopeless as humankind? More so, I am wondering if the restoration can be achieved even without the intervention of God.


We become accustomed to serving ourselves instead of others or God. Often times when we do the things that please us sometimes come at a cost of hurting others. So in that sense in the Christian perspective, that would be considered evil. And yeah, even as a non-Christian I do see the worship of indulgence of the self as destructive to pretty much everyone.

But what do you mean by restoration? If it's a sort of Utopian ideal of harmony I don't think that ever existed. The inner drive to seek power, control, and status is embedded into our species psyche since we are so hierarchically minded . Communism was supposed to be the great equalizer of society but even in China it only exists in name. Can't really talk about equality when you have rural chinese living in squalor while the children of CCP elites come over stateside with utterly ridiculous amounts of money.

Short of a planetary level extraterrestrial events like invasion, or the star trek universe becomes reality, we're kind of in a bind. And even if we did come together, it would only be temporary. 9/11 was a day that saw a tremendous amount of unity, but that came down harder and faster than the friggin towers themselves it seems like.

With that, makes sense that people are hoping that SOMETHING has the handle on this, cause the idea of existing in chaos alone is frightening to a lot of people.

Quote:
I give respect to Jesus, because He taught values that are much needed today. Somehow, I feel that Our humanity has declined. In the news, crime rates increase yearly. It's obvious that we need someone like Jesus who teach us the right ways. However, do we need to create a religion out of Jesus' teachings? His teachings are clear: LOVE. Why do we need a structured religion in this case, Christianity, when we can just follow His commandment: Love God, Love Each Other. I just see that religion has turned into a sort of institution in which a hierarchy exists and the point of the commandment has diminished. To love is pretty basic, it's a common language that people anywhere in the world understand and practice.

I'm also concerned because, some religions seem to create confusion and conflicts that make us destroy each other.


Crime has actually plunged dramatically since the 90s. One thing to consider is that media bombardment of things to fear, despair, and doubt has increased exponentially. Cynically speaking, this may not be accidental. Not only does giving things to make people anxious about increase ratings and revenue, but it keeps people discordant.

Why is it difficult to simply love? Because knowing the practice, and living it are two entirely different things. I practice zazen, which is a sitting meditation where you simply breathe and be in the present moment. Sounds simple, but once you put yourself in a situation where you begin to start really paying attention to yourself and your own breath you'll star to see how utterly chaotic your brain is in how it's constantly moving, processing, thinking, distracting your distractions. It's kinda like being locked in a dark room with your psyche.

Practicing loving-kindness is a lot like that. The idea is simple, and it even pleases us to do it; However, it gets really difficult when you are carrying a lot of baggage. Our own fears, insecurities, ignorances, prejudices cloud our ability to be mindful and compassionate. Talk about a convicted ***** and you'll see people who don't even know the person get viscerally violent in the kind of horrific acts they want to do to them; they don't even think about asking "why did this happen". the criminal may have had a long painful history of being beaten and sexually abused as a child. And sometimes people really don't like it when you try to "humanize" them because it conflicts with their justice boners. And that's part of the problem in which we are in love with our own narrative and idea of "justice" than being 'simply loving'.

We kind of need the structure really. We are chaotic but most of us seek order. We are broken and we seek help, we are students and we need teachers, we are lonely and we need a family.

Faith communities give people the opportunity to seek friendship, family, a connection with people that share beliefs and be able to teach the parts of life that we can't always learn on our own persona experience. Christianity is a revealed faith, and unless you're a saint a person won't just simply be able to deeply understand and life the faith entirely on their own. The events and rituals also serve a purpose. Humans do a lot of communicating, especially through actions and symbolism. They help bring mindfulness and awareness to a practice to make it a living breathing thing than simply a concept inside your head. simply reading about humanity's connection with God and Jesus through his suffering is a different experience than to actually experience a direct real connection and unity with the whole of humanity and Christ through the Eucharist.

The elements of religious practice aren't required in practice, but they're still imporant in what they encourage and inspire. My altar here at home doesn't really need to exist but it calls me to practice, the statue of Guanyin inspires my practice to be loving and compassionate, the picture of the virgin mary reminds me of my wife's practice and also a reminder that compassion extends to even the people who I may have big disagreements with. The offerings of incense and fruit serve to reinforce the intent of my practice, and it being so low to the ground not only calls me to meditate but it also reminds me of humility.

Yeah, I guess I could do without that but it's easy to lose sight of the depth and beauty of practice when you're stuck in your head and suffering and need it most. The faith tradition brings it front and center.

Quote:
I understand. It's because Christians believe that the only way they can become faithful followers is through accepting Jesus in their lives. I see nothing wrong in that but still, we can still be moral-conscious individuals without an organized religion.


I agree, but that's a difficult sell to Christians.
Ties to that whole humanity is broken thing, and on top of that Christianity is a faith that holds revealed and absolute truths backed by infinite power.

So they'll ask what's to keep you from doing whatever you want? Those are the kind of people that for however many years of their life they were taught about compassion, they don't seem to actually understand what it means. They only understand power and punishment. You can't be moral and right because you have nothing that you fear, and nothing to keep you in line.

It's really difficult to meet halfway with people who are pessimistic about humanity and are only there long enough to get a chance at the afterlife.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum