Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

Actually, Almeyda, almost every Moral system is exactly the opposite of what you say.If you look at Buddhism, the sayings of Confucius, the teachings of Mencius or the Dao De Jing, you find just the opposite of Majority Rules. Instead of the situation that you seem to believe, you find discussion after discussion on how to exist. You find example after example that RIGHT decisions must be made at the individual level.IMHO, too many Christians have forgotten that Jesus was not a Bible Thumper. Like the Buddha, like Mencius, like Lao Zi, he taught by telling stories, by example. Jesus said, "Love GOD and love others as you love yourself". Any of the great people that preceeded him would have understood that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You continue to return to the issue of Authority and that is a major theme within each of the existing Moral systems or Religions as well as those that have faded away.But have you noticed that it is within the Judaic based faiths (Jews, Christians and Muslims) that the issue of Authority creates the greatest problems.We have a several threads, right here in River City, devoted to what makes someone a Christian. We have one thread, filled with lewd and obnoxious language, where one alleged Christian calls another group of alleged Christians damned and commiters of an obscene act with their female parent. That alleged Christian goes on to back the statement up with more rantings from what??? A Christian Authority figure.Frankly, if you look through the threads like those, you find little that is moral. If you look at Christian, Jewish and Muslim history, you find little that is moral.So is it possible, that the big difference between the Judaic Religions and most other Religious or Moral systems, the reliance on external Authority of the Judaic based faiths instead of the emphasis on the personal responsibility found in the Eastern religions and many others (Native American faiths for example) is the source for most mass immorality?Is it the Christian, Jew and Muslim's capability to say "I'm committing this act in the name of a higher authority" that allows such behavior?Is the personal responsibility of the individual that is the moral cornerstone of most other religions, and that I believe is the cornerstone of Christianity lost when Authority is transfered from me and you, to the Bible or GOD?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Setting the Record StraightThis section addresses a question about the Native Americans and the 10 Commandments.Excerpt:

quote:

---

The best argument would be the one about ethical laws, for it is true that traditional Native American morality shares similarities to the Ten Commandments (not stealing, not murdering, and not committing adultery). However, it would be hard to envision an ancient society in which stealing, murdering, and adultery were encouraged.

---

This message has been edited by purpledawn, 06-28-2004 06:34 AM

---

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

A summary of the point you wanted from that link would be a good idea. Why don't you edit it in?

almeyda writes:

quote:

---

When society choose relativism over absolutes. Nothing can really be deemed right or wrong.

---

And yet, everybody does this. Even the most "moral" of people.Question: Is killing wrong?Even when it's to save your own life?If you say that it's OK to kill someone to save your own life, then we've got an exception to that "absolute." It turns out that killing is not always wrong. In fact, up until the advent of advanced chemistry, the only for you to live is necessarily to kill something else. You need to eat to live and most of what you eat was once alive.So we've got another exception to the absolute.I won't even begin to go into the "moralists" who rant and rave about how human life is sacred and precious and thus abortion is inherently wrong but then go on to support the death penalty.I'm sure if we were to examine your moral code closely, we would find a slew of exceptions to the "absolute" rules you claim to follow.

quote:

---

Without an absolute of ethics. An individual may choose his own standard because he disagrees with the majority.

---

That may be the case, but from whence comes this idea that the only way an absolute can exist is if it comes from god?Monopoly has rules. Break them, and you're cheating. Get caught, and a range of penalty responses can arise from simple restitution to the game being ended. And yet, Monopoly is a man-made creation.Thus, it is easily seen that absolute moral stances can easily be developed and created by humans without any assistance from a supernatural entity.

quote:

---

Christianity is a factual religion.

---

If so, then the world ended nearly 2000 years ago. Christ directly told some of the people to whom he was speaking that they would live to see the end of the world.So which is it? Did the world end and this is hell (and no wonder you're so cranky) or are there 2000-year-old people wandering around?

Edited to correct a horrendous grammatical error.

This message has been edited by Rrhain, 06-28-2004 12:41 AM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

What a crock. Unless this is used to argue that even North American indigens engaged in moral relativism since many tribes actually encouraged killing, stealing, rape, and adultery - as long as it was perpetrated on another tribe.

Ultimately, people have been left to their own devices, independent of one god, and yet they continue to create codes of conduct (and morality) which are often very similar to the codes and morals of other societies to which they have never been exposed. Why is that?Humans are by nature social animals; so we are very rarely left to our own, individual devices. Since what we do can impact the others with whom we live and work, our societies form codes and rules for what types of behaviors are acceptable regardless of the deity that society professes to worship.Even prison populations, and if ever there were a godless society there you have it, develop codes of behavior to which its members are expected to adhere or face the consequences.The point is, we cannot live in a state of anarchy and live in a society simulataneously. Therefore codes of conduct are developed. Most of these codes are in the self-interest of the individual, so it is not surprising that we see ideas such as 'do not murder,' and 'do not steal' as archetypal across cultures.Add to this the concept that those who do not adhere to the codes of society are 'bad' members of society, while those who do are 'good;' and of a sudden you have morality attached to what was originally common sense and self-preservation.

quote:

---

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

---

Which society?. Im sure you mean western society because we know whats right and wrong and we must inforce our ideas on all people around the world. Because our opinion is right and theres is wrong. The only problem is being 'right' is just a matter of opinion. So no matter how happy you feel, you cannot judge nothing to be right or wrong. If it makes you happy it does not mean it is right. Im sure rapists are happy when there raping girls.

quote:

---

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.

---

I dont mean to say people dont live morally just because there are no absolutes. Millions of ppl live moral lives. Society without reference to God have invented there own morality. Which is relativism. Man decides truth.Ill give you an example from a movie. It was a movie set in the southern states of USA. Someone had murdered and the racially prejudiced townspeople were 100% convinced that the black man did it. But he is innocent. The Sheriff is placed in a quandry, in that if he does not hang the man there will be terrible violence and rioting with a chance of many being killed. With Crashfrogs defination in which morals is decided by what brings the greatest happyness for the greatest number. Naturally the utilitarian principle of the greatest good for greatest number would swing in the direction of hanging the man for the greater good. So we can see that morals can work with giving the greatest number happyness. But it cannot in no way work as a basis of justice, merely a matter of opinion.My argument is not that society cannot live morally without absolutes. It is that there is no right or wrong basis, only opinion. So utilitarianism cannot give us a proper definition of right and wrong.

quote:

---

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

---

Yes of course society is relativist. But we can go back in history and see nations that trusted and knew that there thinking had to be based on Gods word. We saw the French humanistic revolution and we saw the danger. However today it seems all western nations have become secular humanistic.

All of them. Societies which don't maximize happiness don't survive - their members leave or revolt. Almeyda, truth is. Truth cannot be "decided." What you've written is just nonsense. Playing to people's base hatreds doesn't make people happy. It doesn't maximize happiness, it maximizes hatred. You've clearly failed to understand my position, which is mind-boggling because it's such a simple position - we simply do what works. What is moral? What works. What is not moral? That that does not work. Those societies were relativist, though. You're even a relativist, unless you're out there every night stoning witches or anyone wearing mixed fiber clothing. Oh, if only that were true, it would be an incredible world we would live in. A world of peace and happiness and freedom.

---

"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich

quote:

---

Oh, if only that were true, it would be an incredible world we would live in. A world of peace and happiness and freedom.

---

Ahh yes humanism, just another religion of course. Dont forget the one-world goverment. Dont worry im sure our leaders wont be tyrants. Globalism wont mean peace for all. It will mean freedom for none. The government and humanist will rule over us and if we dont want to be 'free', then we will be forced to be 'free'.This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-28-2004 04:33 AM

Why would they be? Unlike in your religion, political power comes from a mandate from the people, not from God. Well, you might be forced to let others enjoy the freedoms that you do, but nothing about that seems unfair to me.Nothing you've said indicates you have any concept of the humanist position, or the beliefs of atheists.

quote:

---

many tribes actually encouraged killing, stealing, rape, and adultery - as long as it was perpetrated on another tribe.

---

Unlike the OT!
Genesis (God killed everything but Noah and family)
Numbers 31 (murder, rape, pillage)
Ezekiel 9:4-6
Hosea 13:16Wouldn't a society have to have a moral system before it can have moral relativism?
Do you know of a society that doesn't practice moral relativism?

---

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

quote:

---

you can be sexually molested and still be fully clothed

---

Too True!It would be interesting to know if they covered it in the Talmud.

---

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

Almeyda,
I have a bit of a problem with what appears to me to be the prime basis for your arguments or statements; namely that the only system of moral belief that is valid is the Christian one. The basis for this argument from you appears to be based solely on your faith and belief in the Christian deity. Sorry for stating the obvious but I believe that it is necessary for me to make my point. I do not believe in your deity, in fact I do not believe in the deity in any established religion. That does not mean that I do not find useful moral guides in their belief systems. In fact, while I consider certain ethical aspects of Taoism and Buddhism to be superior to some of the ethical aspects of Christianity, there are also good moral guidelines in the Christian morals. Without basing your entire argument on the existence of your concept of a deity who is a being who may or may not even exist, can you provide reasons why the Christian moral system and codes is a superior system to that of Buddhism or Taoism? Failing this, and again without basing your entire argument on the unproven existence of the christian deity, can you provide any reason why selecting the best aspects of the different systems would not yield a superior moral code of behavior?

AlmeydaYou seem pretty sure that Christianity is in some way better than other Non-Christian Moral systems. So far you have not shown reasons for that belief though.Saying you believe in the right GOD does not seem to have anything to do with morals. It may or may not be true, but even if so, almost every war, almost every act of genocide over the last two thousand years has been committed in the Name of one of the three Judaic religions. If you want to include the period covered in the OT, that record can be extended back even further.Contrast that with the number of pogroms and wars initiated in the name of the Buddha or in the name of Confucius.The point of this thread is to examine examples of Non-Christian Moral systems.One major point is that Christianity begins with the assumption that all men are evil. It begins with the assumption that given a choice, people will do evil instead of good and that people are incapable of doing good, doing right, on their own.Other Moral systems, for example the teachings of Buddha, Confucius or Mencius, begin with the assuption that people are basically good and when they are shown that it is in their best interest to behave morally, will do so.Wouldn't it be a good idea, if as part of every persons ethical and moral education, all of the various moral systems were studied?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion