Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

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?

"There you go again

quote:

---

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.

---

Part of this is in error,
the majority of the world is not christian . Now, while the world is largely dominated both economically and militarily by nations that arelargely populated by Christians and with a largely christian heritage that has not always been the case. The largely christian nations did not dominate the earth until the 1700's or later, well after they became christian. The cause was largely due to shifts in their approach to viewing the natural world and it was after they started with technological advances that they started to truly dominate the world scene. Now, there are some theories that the combination of older styles of thought and governance left over from the pre-christian Celtic, Frank and Germanic tribes as well as the Roman and Greek influence combined with certain aspects of Christianity that did allow more questioning (after the reformation and the renaissance) made Europe uniquely positioned to make these technological advances. What can not be disputed is that 1) it is a fairly recent occurrence and 2) it is due at least as much if not more to the technological advances than the morality from Christianity.

quote:

---

Christian morality has been derived from Gods character. Not by 'mans wisdom'.

---

Nope, there is no evidence for that. That is why I asked for you to try to define the superiority of the christian morality without basing your argument on the existence of a disputed deity.
For example

quote:

---

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.

---

First off peoples new age crap approach to Buddhism does not make the religion new age. Second, Moses post-dates the Codes from Ancient Babylon based on the data that the plagues of Egypt were dated to the explosion of Thera. Finally, you are still assuming the existence of your deity while I am looking at Moses and Jesus the same way that you look at Buddha. In other words you still have not substantiated your case for the supposed superiority of christian moral based on anything other than a belief in a debatable deity.

quote:

---

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.

---

So, can I take this as a no ? If so please explain why.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

Actually what I was saying is that is just what I think happened in the case of Almeda's prefered moral codes. I do not think that it came down from a deity, IMO it came down from a bunch of people who either believed that a deity wanted them to behave in a certian manner or it came from people who used these codes to control or guide a society.

quote:

---

These opinions can and have provided moral codes for all of human history, but they all contain elements of the same moral truth.

---

That is, IMO, another point against the position that the christian moral codes are superior and from god as Almeda is claiming. Human societies appear to target a similar set of ethos and put them into some form of moral code to make society work. In other words the moral codes are not "one mans opinions' (to paraphrase your statement) but are rather societies opinions on what is needed for a well functioning society.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

You are making a ggod point in so far as it goes, however it suffers from one fatal flaw, at least as far as Alameda's position appears to be.

quote:

---

However, the Christian viewpoint makes sense too. God would create certain laws that govern all humanity to allow sinful mankind to function together. He would give every person a conscience, an intuitive grasp on this moral code, so that all can benefit from it, have a common point of reference, and recognize they've broken it

---

Alameda's position is that this only applies for christianity, yet he provides no information why this must be so. I find his christian deity to be the same as the concept of Buddha or of the overwhelming Tao. Your arguement applies not only to the christian god but to the gods of many religions. Alameda's insitance that he does not have to follow Buddha's creed because he believes in the christian god can, like any weapon, be used against him. As I do not believe in the christian concept of god why should I follow any of the moral concepts included within that religion? Your and Alameda's comments concerning relativity apply to christianity, or any other religion as well, namely what you consider moral is largely based on what god you believe in (please not the term believe). So religion, in and of itself, does not imply an absolute morality.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your and Alameda's comments concerning relativity apply to christianity, or any other religion as well, namely what you consider moral is largely based on what god you believe in

---

​

That is true except I am saying that our conscience plus objectivity will always bring us back to the same principles, God's principles. And if you look at history, people always seem to come back to the same principles.

---

Yes and no. Yes I think that many of the principles in many of the religions are similar in effect if not in design. Where I think that you are wrong is in insisting that they are derived from God or god or gods. They often are derived from religion, which is not the same thing. And if the end effects of many of these principles is the same accross different religions that seems to me to cast a great deal of doubt on the primacy of the christian version of god w.r.t. the origination of these principles. It could just as well have been the Buddha, the Tao, the Great Spirit or Bob,.... or parts of them could be partially hardwired into our brains by evolution as a social animal.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz