Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

quote:

---

In relation to Buddhism. Why should we do what he says?. His not the boss, nor the creator, nor will he judge us all, nor has the power to cast one to utopia or hell. He has no authority to give a moral code.

---

Almeyda, you hit the right spot.We humans are very far fom being responsible creatures; therefore, I salute those who are able to uphold morals without having to be threatened with hellfire if they don't do so.Basically you said, "If there's nothing in it for me, why should I do good?"

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

As an example, there is no place I am aware of where one is told not to sexually molest a sister, or even children in general.

---

Not only that, the Bible gives you explicit instructions on how to sell your daughter into slavery.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hangdawg13 writes:

quote:

---

Regardless of Christianity, Yes; regardless of God, no, because God is truth.

---

But the mere existence of atheists proves you wrong. They have no god and yet, they comprehend truth and have morality just as strong as yours.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

pure unadulterated opinion.unless you can show which version of religion is true.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It is fixed to the extent that it refers to actual written passages in the bible. It is not fixed where it tries to reinterpret passages or to disregard passages that modern christians find distasteful because it doesn't fit with modern social morality.heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

Basically you said, "If there's nothing in it for me, why should I do good?"

---

What i mean is why should i listen to some guys opinion?. When here i have Gods word who is the creator. If i listen to buddhism then why should i reject humanism?. Or a cults theory. It goes on and on. We must have absolutes. But these absolutes must come from someone (thing) who has the right to set the rules. i.e A creator. Without an absolute authority we only have mans opinion. And right is whatever the majority want. A 'golden rule' that has evolved by mans opinion is neither golden, nor a rule.This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-27-2004 05:03 AM

Must we? A finite set of morals can't cover every concievable moral situation. I'd say the last thing we need are absolute morals.The vast number of people who live moral lives without moral absolutes - like me - pretty much proves you wrong. We don't need absolutes.

In other words there is no specific "thou shalt not" passage but it needs interpretation? And where does it prohibit sexual molestation (which does not necessarily involve sex ... cigars come to mind) ... and last time I checked a sister is not a neighbor. No, I think it is becoming more inclusive, more universal and more rational as time passes in civilized societies. How typical. This of course explains why the prison populations are overrun with atheists ... oops! They have basically the same breakdown inside prison as outside. You also need to brush up on why rational behavior and enlightened self-interest work: because people can think about consequences and realize what is universally good for people is ultimately in their interest. Parents that don't teach their children this are short-changing them. The reason it is so universal is (1) it is a universal rule (the primary requirement of a moral code) and (2) it can be derived from first principals (including enlightened self-interest). Why does it have to become immoral rather than superceded? Try a google on "the platinum rule" ... you may learn something. Truth is objective. The more you learn, the more you know. Why do you need someone to tell you how to behave? One could say the same of all laws and regulations, but those that cross them find that the rest of society gets upset and that there are consequences. Wrong. This is small child thinking rather than moral. The first rule of morality is universality -- this make white supremacy or any other supremacy immoral, and it also makes self-gratification thinking immoral. You ignore the basic principals in your rush to discredit rational morality and enlightened self-interest: have you read the Rouseau? You should also look into The Ethics of Humanism without Religion and Atheist Morality as sources of further information. You may want to acquaint yourself with Deism as well. What this shows is an inability to conceive of rational morality and enlightened self-interest ... you need someone to hold your hand. Your examples are rather pathetic (they fail the test of universality) if not simplistic, as they do nothing to redefine good or bad morality, but just assume that no rules apply. Enlightened self-interest means thinking through the consequences of your actions, applying universality to them - it needs to be equally applicable for anyone to be moral, and it must contribute to improved social and individual life. Learn. Apply rational thought and study. And you have failed to demonstrate that.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So those that can do this are better than you? Thanks. Because you can think through the consequences.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

good point.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

When society choose relativism over absolutes. Nothing can really be deemed right or wrong. Because what may be right now, may not be right then. What may be right then, may not be right now. So really we have no basis of morals. And philosophies of life and morals like buddha and humanism. Is just another opinion among the billions of individual people in the world. So since the majority choose morals. Each country can legally raise a nation with their own standard of morals. Without an absolute of ethics. An individual may choose his own standard because he disagrees with the majority. Naturally the majority should not have any basis on which to blame this man for doing wrong. The consistency of society still stands of course. Where we can damm those who choose not to follow our opinion. In conclusion. I already talked quite alot at the Does teaching evo cause social decay thread, but again no one agreed or understood. Anyway in conclusion i say Christianity is either EVERYTHING for mankind, or nothing. It is the highest certainty or the greatest delusion. Christianity is a factual religion. Not about a philosopher in seclusion and under a fig-tree.

Why on Earth would you think such a thing?You've got this idea that the only definition for "wrong" must always be "contrary to the universal moral code."What if the definition of wrong is simply "that which doesn't make people happy?" We can trust society to come up with ways to make the most people happy, because societies are made of people who want to be happy. Except, of course, that which makes people happy. I'm not sure that I'd call that an absolute, but it's pretty much a universal as far as people are concerned. Oh, we understood. We just knew you were wrong.The problem for you is that everybody is a moral relativist to some degree. So the society that has chosen relativism over absolutes already exists - it's the only kind of society that has ever existed.

quote:

---

As an example, there is no place I am aware of where one is told not to sexually molest a sister, or even children in general.

---

Wouldn't Leviticus 18:6-17 cover that? It lists who's nakedness you can't uncover, which supposedly uncovering nakedness means sex? Of course it refers only to relatives.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

If people fail to respect God's authority in the morals their society adheres to the society will eventually either fall apart or not be free.

---

That's actually not true.Some of the best, most free and egalitarian places to live in the world are secular countries in which most people are not religious, such as Sweden and Denmark.Considering that the US is one of the most religious and Christian countries in the world, yet we kill each other with guns at a ridiculously high rate should tell you that something might be flawed in your hypothesis.

you can be sexually molested and still be fully clothedWoody Allen: "copeth a feel of the royal tomatoes"

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}