Examples of non-Christian Moral systems.

Which particular societies did you have in mind? Ones that "came close" to being ones with True Christian Principles, I mean. Examples, please, with why you think they did.

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

so unless you can come up with anything other than what you've said so far, let's move on. I don't want to get mired in only one aspect but rather to actually examine some of the differences between the various religions.Two of the biggest differences that I find between the teachings of Mencius, Buddha, Confucius and others and the Judaic Faiths, are that the Eastern Religions tend to spend considerable effert talking about what makes good government and the duties and responsibilities of a leader, and that the Eastern Religions deal more directly with the results of behavior than the Judaic laws.If you look at most of the Eastern Religions, they begin by teaching the ruler or leader how best to behave. For example, Chapter 1 of Book 1 of Mencius starts by showing that a Ruler can only rule by being benevolent and righteous. When it comes to behavior, the Judaic Religions proscribe specific acts, and do so in a way that is ambiguous and can not be understood rationally.A good example is "Thou shalt not kill". Well, that must mean something other than what it says because the Bible certainly doesn't seem to acknowledge that law. For example, the Bible is full of tale after tale of killing, often directed by God or the religious leader at the time. There is the tale of Jerico and Ai, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Egyptian Pharoah during the Exodus myth along with all his army and most everybody in the world during the Flood Myth. This means that even so basic a law as "Don't Kill" must be interpreted and placed in some context where the actions are not really Killing.The Eastern Religions, on the otherhand, seem to deal with the results of behaviour instead of specific actions. They say, don't cause needless harm to others.Are these really significant differences?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We do not need a volume of law books with a precise 2 page description of every single wrong that can be commited. If you think these things are not covered you have not done your homework. Husbands are commanded to love their wives, and virtue love is the order of the day. The Bible condemns gossiping, maligning, judging, slandering, and other evils of the tounge. Well you will not find a good ethics system that has existed for any length of time that has not followed many of the same principles found in the Bible. OOoooo I sense the hate this statement will generate...

What do you want to bet that he mentions the good old Indian-killing, slave-owning U.S.A.?

quote:

---

Well you will not find a good ethics system that has existed for any length of time that has not followed many of the same principles found in the Bible.

---

Would that be, perhaps, because the good ethical principles turn out to be nearly universal? In which case, what is the big deal about the Bible?

Because your conscience and objectivity guide you to it and because (hopefully) the national government is set up adhering to God's natural laws. 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. It is when people's consciences are destroyed by arrogance and subjectivity enter's people's thinking that people abandon these laws. Respecting God's authority in such laws is the only sure way that society as a whole will continue adhering to them.

I thought we were going to move on and quit bashing Christianity?But since you brought it up, the word "kill" in this passage is in the criminal sense, in other words murder.It is used 42 times as in the sense of murder, only 6 times as kill in the KJV. specific and yet amgiguous? cannot be understood rationally? [qs]

One of the curious things about abuse situations is that the people involved often still claim to love each other. Somehow that 'love' doesn't prevent the abuse, though, and it certainly does not prohibit the physical abuse. There are also passages that say when it is okay to stone to death ... rather extreme physical abuse. Then we don't need to gossip, malign, judge, slander or engage in other evils of the tongue when it comes to other systems of religions, ethics, morals, beliefs, knowledge, social structure, any individual behavior, etcetera ...Does it qualify as gossip, slander, evil, judgmental if you think it is the truth? Verbal abuse is not intentionally lies and misrepresentations or even consciously malicious when it is given as the abusers usually think they are pointing out the faults of the other to help them meet a standard.All those different sections need to be brought together and interpreted to specifically apply to these aspects, while the Buddhist admonition "Work in such a way that you do not hurt others" is immediately applicable.Notice that whenever you go from actual specific quote from the bible to an interpreted application of it, what you are really applying is an evolved social convention ethic rather than a specifically christian one. Doing this supports evolved ethics more than specifically christian ones.Enjoy.

---

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

But how is anyone supposed to know that?You have fallen back on the theory that many horrific acts that have been committed in the name of Christiantity are the result of people not following the Christian Moral Principles. But is it possible that is because it is virtually impossible to figure out what the Christian Moral Principles are?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The KJV is the only version I am aware of that translates ratsach "kill" in this passage. All the other versions say murder. It is clear the intent of this word from the Hebrew and Septuigent.It is a pastor/teacher's job to guard his congregation against misinterpretations like this one.It is also the believer's and pastor's duty to "study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."Come on, Jar! Why must I continually explain principles of Christianity to YOU, a professing Christian (I don't even know if I can call you that since you do not even say "Jesus Christ is Lord")? You are so wise in your eyes, yet you do not care to learn the most basic doctrines of Christianity? No! Virtually impossible??? Only if you are lazy or have your own agenda you are trying to shape it to. If it were virtually impossible, Christianty would not even be here and certainly not be so widely accepted.

You still have not dealt with the two questions I asked back in Message 78.There has to be some reason that so much of the horror of the last 2000 years has been committed in the Name of Christianity or one of the other two Judaic religions. In particular, how do you explain the nearly continuous in family fights between the various Judaic Religions?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Looks like you lost out on the hate generation prediction so far, and have no answer to my other reply to this post?OR is the bible {following \ finding} ethics from other sources? That such ethics can be derived from first principals and the need for ethics to be universal, it is not surprising that different people would come to similar conclusions given the same degree of mental capabilities. A convergent pattern rather than a divergent one ... and wouldn't one expect a divergent one if only one was divinely inspired and the others corrupted, especially by the forces of evil, eh?Here's a question for you: If a man is all alone in the middle of a forest, is he being ethical and moral?
(especially when we already know he's still wrong ... )If it requires social interaction for ethics and morals to apply then it becomes obvious that ethics and morals are social conventions.ps: And yet that is just what some people think the bible is. Curious that, eh?

---

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

Thank you for your reply. Those who claim to love their wives and beat them are fragmented and arrogant. I don't know what their definition of love is, but
1 Corinthians 13:4 says Love is patient, love is KIND. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not PROUD. It is not RUDE, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily ANGERED, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always PROTECTS, always trusts, always hopes, always persevers. Love never fails.Take this passage and the passage that commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and you can obviously classify spousal abuse as immoral. Not to mention all of the other passages that deal with relationships.Or take Job. He is sitting in ashes poking at his sores with a piece of broken pottery after having lost everything, his wife says to him, "Are you still holding on to your integrity??? Why don't you curse God and die!"
Job did not slap her and say, "You bitch!" He said, "You speak AS a foolish woman would speak."Stoning was the capital punishment used in that day for the most severe crimes. We are NOT to gossip, slander, judge etc... other PEOPLE, not ideas. We can discuss religions ethics morals etc... all we want. Bible doctrine is for the purpose of discernment so that we may judge correctly between ideas and uphold the truth. We are to treat our neighbors with virtue love. When I am around friends or acquaintances who talk about getting some from some chick the other night or getting wasted or start gossiping about someone else, I don't say anything at all. I treat them as I treat everyone. If I am given the opportunity, I will gently tactfully and cooly let my thoughts on such matters be known. I do not believe anyone would consider me verbally abusive for this. A good admonition no doubt. Are you saying when I learn something from the Bible and apply it to life I'm really just applying what I already knew from observing society? Sorry, doesn't work. The fact that all objective conscientious people come to approximately the same conclusions about morals points to the fact that they all came from the same source. If ethics were actually evolving, you would have new principles forming and old ones dying; the history books would be filled with "transition fossils" of moral codes. Yet the oldest ones are still just as good and very similar to the ones being used today.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-30-2004 11:12 PM

Parts of the Bible contain direct quotations from God about what is right and wrong e.g. the ten commandments. Parts of the Bible contain proverbs written by wise men like solomon who spent most of their lives seeking wisdom. These parts you could say they are finding ethics by evaluating life just like Buddhists do. They have all found elements of the same moral truth. Please explain these. Well morals aren't just converging throughout history. We have good moral systems as far back as history goes. We have bad moral systems as far back as history goes. The pattern is cyclical. Well I believe ethics are morals between people. I think morals include personal thoughts and actions as well as those that affect others... So I suppose he is being ethical, but may or may not be moral at the time. If he is out there poaching and needlessly slaughtering wild geese, then I spose he is being immoral. If he is out there enjoying solitude, I spose he's being moral. If his plane crashed leaving him stranded, and he's thinking "F***ing hell, God why did you do this to me!", I spose he's being immoral. If he's out there painting a picture thats cool. If he's out there looking at porn, thats not cool. This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 06-30-2004 11:33 PM