Can religion really claim to guide on morality?

[SolidSnake]

I have a question I would much appreciate some ideas on from those of faiths and also those of no faith.

"Can religious leaders and followers of a religion claim with conviction and a clear conscience that their faith be the very compass of morality that we all should follow?"

Isn't there a huge amount of hypocrisy in this? There are many quotes and teachings in holy books that fly in the face of what we would call moral and even by todays standards we would feel were totally immoral.

[Adamoriens]

Hello SolidSnake.

"Can religious leaders and followers of a religion claim with conviction and a clear conscience that their faith be the very compass of morality that we all should follow?"

If one says that another should follow a given moral compass, then they are obviously appealing some sort of moral criteria that stands above the compass. The only way around this would be to appeal to some other non-moral criteria, as in the statement, "if you want to be happy, you should use my moral compass."

[Kuan]

No one can prove their morals are correct, so in the end it is up to you what you choose. I belief mine are correct, I wont force them upon you though. Id rather die than force my beliefs on anyone.

[Choir Loft]

I have a question I would much appreciate some ideas on from those of faiths and also those of no faith.

"Can religious leaders and followers of a religion claim with conviction and a clear conscience that their faith be the very compass of morality that we all should follow?"

Isn't there a huge amount of hypocrisy in this? There are many quotes and teachings in holy books that fly in the face of what we would call moral and even by todays standards we would feel were totally immoral.

"We're all part monsters in our subconscious, so we have laws and religion!"
- Commander John J. Adams
FORBIDDEN PLANET

As Commander Adams stated so well, we are all part animal. The beast still lives in us all. Neither does any man live as an island.

We live together as beasts with self-imposed limits, invisible chains that restrict our actions. External chains are real and are expressed as laws imposed by the community upon its members. Internal limits, morality and religion are invisible but no less effective for the advancement of the individual as well as the community.

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So do whatever they tell you and follow it, but stop doing what they do, because they don't do what they say."

Mat 23:1-3

Morality, justice and pure religion are the backbone of human civilization and culture. Hypocrisy, injustice and tyranny always end it.

The practice of religion is an individual pursuit of benefit to the community as well as the believer. It is dependent upon and responsible to a power beyond that of man.

Man, as a social creature, is hard wired to worship and respond to an authority beyond his own. Nature abhors a vacuum and when faith in a supreme being fails, the state assumes the vacated role. No state thus endowed with devotion from it's citizens ever rules justly. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. Such states always become tyrants and their end is always in the flames of their own corruption.

Should a man refrain from good morals and the practice of religion just because there are criminals and hypocrits in the world? NO.

Should a man cease from seeking God because fools and godless men multiply, the greedy amass riches, and the liar gains power? NO.

Should a man do wickedly just because everybody else does?
I'll let the reader answer this one, for in this shall he judge himself.

[McCulloch]

"We're all part monsters in our subconscious, so we have laws and religion!"
- Commander John J. Adams
FORBIDDEN PLANET

As Commander Adams stated so well, we are all part animal. The beast still lives in us all. Neither does any man live as an island.

Commander Adams, a fictitious character, said monster not animal. Humans are not part animal, we are animals.

Morality, justice and pure religion are the backbone of human civilization and culture. Hypocrisy, injustice and tyranny always end it.

Morality has certainly been foundational to human civilization. Hypocrisy, injustice and tyranny are bad things. Religion ... can be good can be bad. The use of the adjective pure in your argument sounds a whole lot like the true Scotsman argument.

Man, as a social creature,

Humanity is a social species. Yes.

is hard wired to worship and respond to an authority beyond his own.

Yes. That is the nature of society. Not so much worship but to accept authority beyond the individual. Religions were invented to augment the authority of the rulers.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

So then what can be said of an omnipotent being. Omnicorrupt?

Should a man refrain from good morals and the practice of religion just because there are criminals and hypocrits in the world? NO.

Should a person not practice good morals irrespective of religious faith? Can a person of faith justify bad behavior on the basis of that faith?

Should a man cease from seeking God because fools and godless men multiply, the greedy amass riches, and the liar gains power? NO.

Right. A person should cease from seeking the gods because all of the evidence points to their being fictional.

[Choir Loft]

Humans are not part animal, we are animals.

In so far as you speak for yourself, I agree.
Other people, not so much.

The use of the adjective pure in your argument sounds a whole lot like the true Scotsman argument.

What are you, an English teacher or somebody who likes to show how clever he is by picking apart a sentence one word at a time?

Your analysis proves nothing except that you are adept at avoiding the point.
Still, that's something - when logic fails you've got to look good somewhere along the line.

Once. Just once, I'd like to read a reply from some self-styled religious bigot that was original. Instead the world is treated to conceited blather. These people think they're being clever when all they succeed in doing is publishing adolescent tripe. They write like a broken record. How refreshing it would be if they conjured up something new to say. Alas, that is not to be.

There are problems with religion because people are involved. The nature of man is to go his own way. The problem is that man is like the lemming; all grimly determined that their path is the right one and all headed for self-destruction despite warnings and signs to the contrary.

richardP wrote "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

So then what can be said of an omnipotent being. Omnicorrupt?

This is a clear and present example of conceited bigotry masquerading as humor. The phrase I quoted is a common one and refers to corruption in human leadership.

Your hatred of logic and religious folk is so obscene that you cannot even force yourself to admit the point of a simple four word quote.

"When a man points to a bird in the sky, it is the fool who examines his finger."
- Anonymous

Should a person not practice good morals irrespective of religious faith? Can a person of faith justify bad behavior on the basis of that faith?

I suppose an irreligious person could practice good behavior. You certainly can't. Your revulsion of all persons who believe in something higher than themselves, yes and even God Himself, borders on demonic obsession.

In the middle ages, the common belief was that the earth was the center of the universe. In all the years since and in all the progression of science, philosophy and politics we still see evidence of people that believe something similar.

Denying God, they believe that the universe revolves around themselves. There is nothing beyond their own limited understanding and no vision beyond their own self-imposed blindness, no purpose in life beyond that of the needs of the stomach.

Ever hear the joke about the dead atheist? All dressed up and no place to go.

God holds His hand out in a gesture of reconciliation all day long. But night is coming when mercy will end and justice must be paid. To deny God with an argument so thin that hatred must be employed to defend it is self-defeating. It is not good to live in rejection of God.
No man can war with a god and win.
Wise up, wise guy.


You have the choice of looking at my finger or gazing into the sky.
I give you the sky and I give you the finger.
Make your choice.
-30-

[Goat]

God holds His hand out in a gesture of reconciliation all day long. But night is coming when mercy will end and justice must be paid. To deny God with an argument so thin that hatred must be employed to defend it is self-defeating. It is not good to live in rejection of God.
No man can war with a god and win.
Wise up, wise guy.


You have the choice of looking at my finger or gazing into the sky.
I give you the sky and I give you the finger.
Make your choice.
-30-

If course, there seems to be a some unsupported claims in this. Can you show that God even exists, must less 'holds his hand out in a gesture of reconsilation'?

Can you show that 'hatred is employed'?? Doubting the word of people who make claims in a God's name they can't show to exist is not hatred.

[Choir Loft]

If course, there seems to be a some unsupported claims in this. Can you show that God even exists, must less 'holds his hand out in a gesture of reconsilation'?

Can you show that 'hatred is employed'?? Doubting the word of people who make claims in a God's name they can't show to exist is not hatred.

Can I show that God exists? Easy.

The fact that I am typing these words is proof positive, physical and certain.
I would have died six times or more if not for the direct intervention of providence.
Because HE lives, I live.

Shall I offer any other evidence? Absolutely not. Don't even ask because I won't give it. Jesus said it shouldn't be done. Something about not sharing one's treasure with a bunch of pigs. I'm sure YOU understand the meaning well enough.

BTW the spelling is 'reconciliation'. It means 'the reestablishment of cordial relations.' Theologically it has a range of meaning, mostly peace with God.

Honest doubt is a quality of good character.

Religious bigotry and hatred is evidenced by a lack of respect, illogic and unreasoning rejection of any example or evidence. It is the measure of one who has a mean and destructive character.

It is not doubt, honestly.

[Goat]

If course, there seems to be a some unsupported claims in this. Can you show that God even exists, must less 'holds his hand out in a gesture of reconsilation'?

Can you show that 'hatred is employed'?? Doubting the word of people who make claims in a God's name they can't show to exist is not hatred.

Can I show that God exists? Easy.

The fact that I am typing these words is proof positive, physical and certain.
I would have died six times or more if not for the direct intervention of providence.
Because HE lives, I live.

How is that evidence? That seems to be the logical fallacy known as 'begging the question'. I would love to see how you support the claim that you had 'direct intervention of providence' to save your life. Just because you attribute a chance survivial to 'divine providence' doesn't mean it is.

I see you 'provding evidence' for one unsupported claim with another one.

Shall I offer any other evidence? Absolutely not. Don't even ask because I won't give it. Jesus said it shouldn't be done. Something about not sharing one's treasure with a bunch of pigs.

Then, why should I believe you? I ask for you to support your claim, and I get an insult in return.

To me, this does not show someone declares the truth.



BTW the spelling is 'reconciliation'. It means 'the reestablishment of cordial relations.' Theologically it has a range of meaning, mostly peace with God.

Honest doubt is a quality of good character.

Religious bigotry and hatred is evidenced by a lack of respect, illogic and unreasoning rejection of any example or evidence. It is the measure of one who has a mean and destructive character.

It is not doubt, honestly.[/quote]

[McCulloch]

Humans are not part animal, we are animals.

In so far as you speak for yourself, I agree.
Other people, not so much.

Really, I mean it. we are all animals. Highly developed animals with culture, society, ethics and all that. But we are animals. We are alive, we breath, we are really bad at photosynthesis ... As much as we like to imagine ourselves to have some kind cosmic importance or spiritual existence, the evidence points to the fact that humanity is the product of biological evolution.

The use of the adjective pure in your argument sounds a whole lot like the true Scotsman argument.

What are you, an English teacher or somebody who likes to show how clever he is by picking apart a sentence one word at a time?

No, I am not an English teacher, but my mom was. Is there something wrong with being an English teacher?

It appears that I have failed to convey entirely what I intended. I apologize for making the assumption that you would be able to understand my point with me merely naming a commonly understood logical fallacy.

Morality, justice and pure religion are the backbone of human civilization and culture.

Without a defining what is meant by pure religion, this sentence says nothing about the nature of the alleged positive influence of religion on civilization and culture. If one of us were to point out a negative influence of religion on civilization and culture a religionist can simply dismiss such criticism with the statement, "Oh, but that isn't pure religion."

There are problems with religion because people are involved.

I agree. A religion with no people is much better than one that has people.
*** I'm joking with you ***

The nature of man is to go his own way. The problem is that man is like the lemming; all grimly determined that their path is the right one and all headed for self-destruction despite warnings and signs to the contrary.

Yes, I agree with you that it is the nature of humanity to make one's own choices, to set one's own path. Even sometimes a path which can be seen to be heading to really bad consequences. How many people should have known of the recent economic meltdown? For some thought provoking examples and analysis, read Willful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan.

My problem is in how to determine which if any of the many competing human voices all claiming to speak for the god, are to be believed. And why.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

So then what can be said of an omnipotent being. Omnicorrupt?

This is a clear and present example of conceited bigotry masquerading as humor. The phrase I quoted is a common one and refers to corruption in human leadership.

Quite so. It was a cheap shot. However, the point remains. Words and concepts, which we think we understand, suddenly and inexplicably change their meaning when in the hands of a theist talking about their god. Everything that exists must have an explanation; a creator; except God. Love is not jealous, but the god who loves you is jealous. God desires justice, but is willing to transfer the punishment of our sins to an innocent volunteer. The logical laws of identity and non-contradiction do not apply when discussing the Trinitarian god. ...

"When a man points to a bird in the sky, it is the fool who examines his finger."
- Anonymous

[shamelessly extending the metaphor]But I don't see the bird. I see a bunch of folks pointing at the sky, some of them in different directions, all of them claiming to be pointing to the most wonderful bird, but all there is is sky. [/shamelessly extending the metaphor]

Should a person not practice good morals irrespective of religious faith? Can a person of faith justify bad behavior on the basis of that faith?

I suppose an irreligious person could practice good behavior. You certainly can't.

And I suppose that a religious person could practice genuine altruism. What did Jesus teach about judging others?

Your revulsion of all persons who believe in something higher than themselves, yes and even God Himself, borders on demonic obsession.

Good one! I was reminded recently that when logic fails you've got to look good somewhere along the line.

Denying God, they believe that the universe revolves around themselves.

Quite the contrary. Humans are afraid that the universe does not revolve around themselves. They are afraid that when their lives are over they are over. They need to feel as if their lives have some cosmic importance. So they have invented the gods, who justify their own self-importance. They believe that the God of all creation, takes a personal interest in the lives of some intelligent life forms on the surface of some small ball of mud, soil and air, circling about an otherwise nondescript star. That this creator would himself become one of us, to be a sacrifice to redeem us from our sins. But somehow [font=Georgia]I[/font] am the one who believes that the universe revolves around me!? Check out Matthew 7:1-6.

Ever hear the joke about the dead atheist? All dressed up and no place to go.

I was reminded recently that conceited bigotry sometimes masquerades as humor.