Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

We see in the past how western nations. Which are the nations that quite frankly rule the world, in which morals to choose were mostly christian. Christianity is the moral standard that the majority of the world has embraced as being the one we choose to live under. Christian morality has been derived from Gods character. Not by 'mans wisdom'. Americas Declaration of Independence was built on such an unchanging basis for rights. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed the need for such a basis when he asked rhetorically, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?". During the British Coronation ceremony a Bible is presented to the monarch with the words "We present you with this book, the most valuable thing this world affords. Here is wisdon. This is the Royal Law. These are the lively oracles of God". These words are true and deeply significant. Look at Americas past. The 10 commandments were sacred and true. Todays sinful man has thrown them out and pretended like God does not exist anymore. What did you do in courtrooms but put your hand on a Bible and swear unto God?. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, one of the oldest codified sets of laws. Its been the Bible always. Gods word.

quote:

---

can you provide reasons why the Christian moral system and codes is a superior system to that of Buddhism or Taoism?

---

Buddhism is based on the opinion of a philosopher. Buddha was born around 563BC. A long time after Moses had delivered Gods law to the nation of Israel. Buddhism is an anti-god philosophy. It is athiestic in its philosophy. The Bible warned us that the fool had said in his heart, there is no God. Buddhism is a new age philosophy, that im my opinion is a false religion. There is respect for Buddha however for not professing to be God merely attempted to improve Hindu philosophy. No divine evidence. Died and remained dead.

quote:

---

can you provide any reason why selecting the best aspects of the different systems would not yield a superior moral code of behavior?

---

Whos to decide which morals we pick? The goverment? The majority?. All this does is make morals relative again. Which is why nothing is right or wrong if the individual is his own person and can decide to choose truth for himself. We need a firm foundation of absolutes. In the past its been judeo/christianity, its been Jesus and Gods teachings to mankind. The only reason man has pushed christianity aside is because he does not want to live under Gods rules, but mans rules.

quote:

---

Do you agree that one test of the validity of a moral system should be the lives and behavior of its followers?

---

Yes of course. But the problem i have with 'christian atrocities' is that is this something man has done or is this what God is teaching us to do. Its certainly not what Jesus has taught us. We must go to the foundation of the religion. Just as in the 'radicalism and religion' thread when many stated that the Koran is not to blame for terrorism as it does not teach this etc. The same is for christianity. If people have killed in the name of christianity then they have not been consistent with their belief (i.e do not murder).

quote:

---

A "new age philosophy" that predates the supposed birth of jesus? Little confused about "new age" as well as Buddhism it seems. Tell us where does Buddhism say there is no god? There is no evidence that jesus was not just another "philosopher" of a "false religion" and any claims to know otherwise is groundless opinion

---

Have you ever wondered how men like Buddha didnt 'fake' prophecies, 'fake' miracles. Many here say well noone knows that Jesus 'really' did those things. The prophecies were all put on and faked they say. But not many other religions have 'faked' these things. The reason is when a event happens in history, there is enough eyewitnesses and written manuscripts and accounts circulating for many to have denounced them as false and frauds. Yet the Bibles letters were cherished and widely accepted as truth. Written works of anything in history from the period of AD30-to-60 are said to fit in bookends only a footapart. The magnitude of the christian record stands far above any record of anyone who has ever lived. Existing early manuscripts exceed 24,000.