Who Decides About Right Or Wrong

[R. S. Martin]

you're used to the idea of fallen man. It's nonsense. you never needed a god to prevent you from killing, raping, stealing... the claim that man needs a god to be good is bollocks. It cheapens mankind and the 50,000 years devlopment we've struggled through... Imange ofd god, I call bullshit... I'm BETTER than the god of the bible... I'm pretty accepting of all people. tell me I'm a worthless anything, then you have the devil to fight, since there is no quarter from that insult...

 

Michael, to expand on Gramps's idea. As you keep saying there is no evidence that God exists. That means that everything you have figured out, every good thing you have done--that comes from YOUR mind, from YOUR brain, from YOUR better knowledge.

 

I really liked your observation above that people who accept responsibility for their actions or behaviour behave better than those who don't, or who think God or Satan makes them do it. I think there's a lot of wisdom in that. And believe me, I've asked the same questions you're asking. I didn't have the internet so I just observed the people I could see, read novels, listened to the news, learned what goes on in the world. I concluded that humans are inherently good but that evil often alienates them from their own goodness so that they don't know they are good.

 

You are right. The holocaust could happen again. I think it was in the 1960s that Stanley Milgram did a lot of experiments with ordinary people to see if it could happen in the US to ordinary people and he saw that it could. Most people just do what they are told to do even when they know it can cause fatal damage to another person. At least, that was his findings in the 60s.

 

I would like to think that in North America today people are far more liable to question authority than they were in the 60s. I think I see that all the time but maybe I'm looking at the wrong people. However, this is what I see: My father was an adult raising kids in the 60s. He talked with a war vet who said he was alive because he learned to jump on command even when it made no sense. Dad instructed us in a severe voice that we needed to likewise obey him regardless whether or not it made sense, because life could one day depend on it. The war veteran must have been at least ten years older than Dad. This means that in the 60s, North America's decision-makers--the 40-50 year-old males, had vivid memories of WW2. Their predecessors had equally vivid memories of WW1. They would have been doing all within their power to instill the value of blind obedience into the younger generation.

 

However, the 1960s were also the decade of the counter-culture, when the hippies came with their New Age and free love, etc. All the old norms had to go. Sorry, Michael, all I know is North America but maybe you can see parallels in European or German society. Freud came out of a German land, and so did Jung, around 1900. Freudian psychology took hold in Europe and also in North America. By mid-century, psychologists like Carl Rogers and Abraham H. Maslow were making massive contributions to human psychology. Philosophers, theologians, and lawmakers were not blind or idle, either. The way I see it, the clash of the blind obedience of the war culture with the "everythng goes" of the hippie culture was mediated with the more educated culture of philosophers, theologians, lawmakers, and perhaps others so that by the 1980s we had a more liberal but stable atmosphere where the individual was valued (was allowed to know the reason for jumping) but in exchange for this liberality had to take responsibility for personal behaviour that was unknown by earlier generations.

 

I think this held more or less well into the nineties. But people were scared shitless of the up-coming Y2K--the Year 2000. Anyone remember this crap? We were just settling into routine and catching our collective breath and daring to believe that the world would continue after all, just like it always had. Then...

 

BANG!

 

BANG!

 

BANG!

 

That was 9/11 happening in case you didn't know. Seems we've just been bewildered and confused and angry ever since. I think some people don't care because they've given up. I think others don't trust anybody, least of all anybody in a ruling position because all rulers seem to have proved themselves unworthy of their position. I see two and three-year-old toddlers taking responsibility for their behaviour and making personal decisions on levels I never knew babies could evaluate. I see teenagers ask hard uncompromising questions about life.

 

Michael, those are my impressions. I speak from Ontario, Canada. And the broader culture I am trying to describe is Canada and the United States. Obviously, it is a very generalized over-view, and probably no one else will agree exactly with me. I would think things would feel somewhat different in Germany than this.

[R. S. Martin]

I kind of went off on a tangent in that post. I had an experience that I think answers your question a little bit. I have to fill you in a bit on my background so it makes sense.

 

I lived most of my life in a very strict horse and buggy church where there were rules for every inch of one's life. I liked the culture except that I wasn't allowed to use my mind for anything. My sisters were allowed to teach school but I wasn't. At age forty I finally couldn't take the intellectual atrophy anymore and decided to break with tradition and get a university education, which was not allowed. I kept it a secret for over a year but finally I came out of the closet.

 

One day when I came home my sister told me that the deacon wanted to see me. After supper I went to see him and his wife. As I was leaving the house I felt really vulnerable and lost. I felt like all the rules I had ever known were null and void. I felt like I was stepping into a void. I had no idea what rules would govern my meeting with the deacon and his wife.

 

The name of our church was Old Order Mennonite. Up till that moment I had operated by their rules and norms all except for getting an education. I knew that my education would continue. I expected the deacon to prounounce an ultimatum. And I would not comply. I would leave the church before I would give up education. I had made that decision during the year of secret study. How would I handle that?

 

As I was leaving my house on my way to meet with the deacon and his wife, suddenly I knew. I would be respectful at all costs. No matter what they said, no matter if they yelled at me or condemned me, I would be respectful. I valued my Self too much to have disrespect for elders on my record.

 

Then I knew that this was my deepest value. I believed then that humans have values that go deeper than rules because I had been stripped of all rules yet this was impressed on my consciousness as something that was more important than rules.

 

I don't know if this is universal but it seemed to apply to me at that specific moment in time.

 

In case you're interested in the outcome. There was no ultimatum. I told them my decision. The deacon was decent but his wife was openly peeved. She dared not say too much in the presence of her husband but I had to pass her to leave the house and she said something nasty under her breath. I did not respond. He had left the house ahead of me so he didn't hear it.

 

That was Friday night. By Sunday morning I had unofficially withdrawn my membership.

[Vigile]

Michael,

 

As others have pointed out, fallen man is a paradigm which you are still in the process of shedding. It takes time and thought to gain a new perspective.

 

I've been an atheist for years and years now, yet I've never had any desire to go on a killing spree or so much as steal a candy bar from the grocer. In fact, I'm abhored by the idea of what the US is doing in Iraq. Yet christians in America by and large support the war as if it were a war against good and evil.

 

People are capable of a lot of things, but society tends to keep things together for the most part. Note that it is when civil order breaks down that the really bad stuff happens. During times of civil breakdown people act less rationally.

 

I'm not a humanist. I don't believe man is good at the center of his being. But, I don't believe man is evil either. Man is capable of doing bad things and man is capable of doing really good things. This is just a reality. Life just is. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Michael]

Hello RuySera,

 

did I read "with 40"? Because of an education? Can I read your testimony somewhere?

When I read your ideas, you sound like someone who can think, like everyone I have read so far on this forum. How can intelligent people fall into such a trap like xianity? It is true, that xian stuff is not about logic, that it is about emotions.

All the intelligent people leave church. There is this churchless faith movement somewhere (Australia? New Zealand?) and they found out, that church leavers have been most of the time very good xians, who supported the church in any way they could. And they discovered, that the church leavers knew their bibles very well. In our church they thought (and I thought that), that church leavers are undecided people, who do not want invest in a "real" christian life and that they would be people, who did not know the bible very good (because we thought, that someone who knows "all the truth" would not leave church).

So I am proud, that I am here because of my intelligence and because of my high values regarding truth and justice.

 

I remebered last night, that one of my main problems with xianity was the question of the absolute truth. I saw that there were different points of view regarding homosexuality, women, sexuality at all, America, Israel...about baptism, speaking in tongues and whatever you can imagine. We were all xians and the same Holy Spirit that tought me that baptism is important, told someone else, that baptism was not nesscesary. Why? How could there be so many different concepts about god, when god is who he is? Is the Holy Spirit not able to communicate the concept of god to all xians in the same way? Did we have not the Holy Spirit or did the other churches not have the Holy Spirit? So you can see, even as a xian I had the problem of "who decides about right or wrong."

[Guest debtor2grace]

I'm fond of ethics as a subject and the construction of an objective moral code without the premise of Divine Command is an interesting problem. God has been used as a prop to many systems, good and bad...lends a strong sense of consequence, a reward-punishment mentality if you will, to one's decision-making. But there are other internal and external forces that can be used. I can function on a mental level without the premise of God...so, how to extrapolate a moral system?

 

Deontology, rule-based ethics, is commonly appropriated by a Christian model (and for sensible and obvious reasons). I've never been able to get through much of Kant, but I've gleaned a sense of what he posited from secondary sources (Pojman's Discovering Ethics is quite a good beginning text...and for those who are interested, he is an atheist who advocates objective morality all the same). One applies reason to the recognition of principles, inviolable rules, and their unexcepted application. In theory, a society where no one - under any circumstances - steals, tells lies or carries out personal vengeance (regardless of what potentially justifiable end lends itself to the situation), is ultimately more stable. (Now, you won't have too many pure deontologists out there...more hierarchical, in those situations where two principles conflict, choosing that which has been decided upon to be of greater weight.)

 

My philosophy professor (who is a somewhat modified deontologist), once led our class through a reasonable extrapolation of the following list (another's reason could possible yield somewhat different results, but not drastically different):

 

1. Do no harm (non-maleficence); physical, social, emotional, economic harm.

2. Do good (beneficence). Obviously, the obligation to do good is weaker than the obligation to do no harm. The obligation to do good is based on two factors: the cost to you and the benefit to the other (they are inversely related).

3. Tell the truth. 3 different kinds of lies: 1) we lie to harm another (malicious) 2) to protect ourselves 3) to protect another – that’s almost a virtuous act!

4. Keep your promises. Covenant. We have taken some action in the past that creates an obligation in the present that we did not have before. We ought to be careful about our obligations.

5. Respect for Autonomy. Insofar as possible, I am going to let you make the decisions for your life. Some limitations – must be fully mature, rational – (otherwise paternalism).

6. Justice. Not just formal justice, but fairness. Treating like cases alike, and different cases different. How we are going to adjudicate this lottery of life.

7. Reparations – you broke it, you fix it. There are two complications: what happens when you can’t pay in kind? How far does responsibility extend?

8. ***Gratitude. Perhaps not precisely ethical in nature, gratitude certainly contributes to overall societal stability.

 

Principle ethics doesn't sit well with everyone - it's cold, inflexible and doesn't require much intellectual activity past the initial choice of a principle. Teleological ethics is another system...the ends justify the means (to some extent). The final result of an action determines its ethical status. Can lead to abuse and dangerous arrogance - i.e., thinking that one is above the rules to a certain extent.

 

Egoism is familiar to Randians out there. Ayn Rand, secular humanist and author of Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, We the Living (novels) as well as The Virtue of Selfishness (an ethical treatise) [For those who haven't read it, We the Living is lesser-known but stylistically quite good, more realistic, more autobiographical, than her other novels.] It seems to me that an intelligent egoist becomes a utilitarian in the end - we shy away from a dog-eat-dog world where life tends to look more "poor, brutish, nasty and short." Almost no one wants the complementing economic system: laissez-faire capitalism. Nietzsche's "slave morality" has a well-deserved place in society.

 

I myself am mostly an aretaist, a virtue-ethicist in the sense of Christ, Aristotle. It's more based on intuition than I'd prefer...but I have the deontic list to look at if I need, not to mention a pretty sensitive conscience. I've functioned this way, ethically, since before I was a Christian. Maybe not as consistent as a deontologist, but I'd tell a lie to save my neighbor's life. Motive and character represent a significant part of the equation for me.

 

Why be ethical in the first place? On a personal level, it's satisfying. On a mass level, it's much safer. I think ethics ought to be taught in the lower-level schools, middle school and high school. Give kids the imposing accountability of societal consequences or let them hit upon a meaningful support of their own, just condition them to regard certain universal principles at a young age.

 

(Question: what motivates y'all to active kindness? Passive obedience to the "thou shalt not's" of our world is a smart, but not a particularly ethical choice. It's the above-and-beyond activities that interest me most.)

[Grandpa Harley]

really a rather good post... shame you spoilt your rep with the God bothering...

 

and the Sagan 'Pale Blue Dot' speech sort of sums up why I do what I do 'over and above'

 

Specifically

 

"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

 

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

 

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." (American spelling preserved)

[Ouroboros]

I have lately started to lean towards a duty based morality, just because I've heard and read very good explanations to why and how you need guidelines within the moral sphere to create a stable and free society. But of course, I don't think it needs a divine source to explain this, since most of the understanding has come from philosophers rather than the Bible. Granted the Bible does have some of the final points you'd get if you try to figure out what the virtues would be, but it's not alone, it has been said and done in many other religions and ideologies around the world before and after its creation. Furthermore I don't believe a try duty based morality needs an eternal punishment to function, since it would lead to people doing it out of fear of retribution, and not from the aspiration to excel.

[R. S. Martin]

Hello RuySera,

 

did I read "with 40"? Because of an education? Can I read your testimony somewhere?

When I read your ideas, you sound like someone who can think, like everyone I have read so far on this forum. How can intelligent people fall into such a trap like xianity? It is true, that xian stuff is not about logic, that it is about emotions.

All the intelligent people leave church.

 

I was born into the church and the cost of not joining at the expected age was unthinkable. My story is here. You can also read A Bit About Me, and lots more of my ideas as I work through various concepts. My ancestors came from Germany or there-abouts and I speak Pennsylvania German. I can also read Martin Luther's German Bible and simple German text elsewhere. So we have a few things in common, though I don't know as much European--esp. German--history as I hope to know someday.

 

I disagree that all intelligent people leave the church. I have met a few truly intelligent people who remain Christian. The ones I have in mind are in teaching positions. However, I know that not all teachers are intelligent. I have little respect for the ones who tell me I ask too many questions in their field of specialty. My NT prof absolutely hated to be cross-questioned and I learned very little from him. My thesis supervisor will tolerate anything. I love working with him and consider him to be one of this world's most brilliant brains. He does not hesitate to say "I don't know." As someone on these forums says in their signature, those three little words indicate wisdom.

 

There is this churchless faith movement somewhere (Australia? New Zealand?) and they found out, that church leavers have been most of the time very good xians, who supported the church in any way they could. And they discovered, that the church leavers knew their bibles very well.

 

I hadn't heard about that movement but on exC we come to that conclusion. I also found myself surprised many a time when I was still with my own people that they who professed to be so sure of their faith did not know the Bible as well as I did. I searched the Bible for proofs for the things everybody else was so sure of. I wanted the same kind of sure faith that everybody else seemed to have. "Faith is the substance of things hoped, for the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). "Seek and ye shall find" (Matt. 7:1). We used mainly the NT so I read it many times. I also read the parts of the OT that we used, and parts we didn't use. I also read parts of the NT that we didn't use. But the Answers were NOT THERE. The only parts of the Bible I didn't read were the prophecies and the Law.

 

In our church they thought (and I thought that), that church leavers are undecided people, who do not want invest in a "real" christian life and that they would be people, who did not know the bible very good (because we thought, that someone who knows "all the truth" would not leave church).

So I am proud, that I am here because of my intelligence and because of my high values regarding truth and justice.

 

Glad to have you.

 

I remebered last night, that one of my main problems with xianity was the question of the absolute truth. I saw that there were different points of view regarding homosexuality, women, sexuality at all, America, Israel...about baptism, speaking in tongues and whatever you can imagine. We were all xians and the same Holy Spirit that tought me that baptism is important, told someone else, that baptism was not nesscesary. Why? How could there be so many different concepts about god, when god is who he is? Is the Holy Spirit not able to communicate the concept of god to all xians in the same way? Did we have not the Holy Spirit or did the other churches not have the Holy Spirit? So you can see, even as a xian I had the problem of "who decides about right or wrong."

 

Well, there were about six different kinds of Mennonites, all of different degrees of conservativism-liberalism, in the neighbourhood where I grew up. All had their own dress code and their own beliefs. Some would not eat at the same table as the others and definitely not go inside the church building of any of the other groups. If there were any atheists, I don't think they would have dared speak up because they could have had their property vandalized. Everybody grew up having opinions as to who decides about right and wrong. The Bible. Our Church.

 

I think most of those people were reading the Bible. There were warnings against reading too much Scripture and I can see why--it led to serious disagreements about exactly what God really meant in the Bible. Most of those churches have split since then.

 

By the time I had to make major life decisions I concluded that no church was better than another church in the eyes of God. I believed that all churches were equal. At least, so far as Mennonites were concerned. I had a strong bias towards Mennonites. I did not understand people who believed that war was okay or that believed in infant baptism. But Mennonites believed all the "comfortable" things so I didn't care what group they were; one was as good as another. From there to universalim was not a far stretch for me.

 

Also, I discovered Guidepost magazine. It contains people's faith stories. That showed me that it was possible for people from all walks of life to have genuine faith in God. That was new to me, but I had always wondered. Of special insight were stories about people seeking God's guidance in situations such as divorce, and careers in dancing and sports. Those were three items that I was taught were of the devil for sure. Well, I saw that people could be genuinely concerned about right and wrong in those so-called evil things. Obviously, my church was wrong about those people being so evil.

 

From there, it was not a big step to the modern Mennonites with their worship band. I could have chosen a "quieter" congregation but I knew a few people in this church and it was a small congregation, which appealed to me.

 

In my second year at the university I had a religious studies professor who introduced himself as agnostic. Wow! I had never seen a person whom I knew did not believe in God. I watched that man like a beatle under a microscope. Did he have any morals? What was he like?

 

He acted just like all my other profs. First, I was totally "taken" with the topic of sociology of religion, which was what he taught. The terrorist attack on the US happened the day after the first class. The class met the day after the attack. He conducted what seemed like a funeral service. I'll never forget that class. We're just outside Toronto. New York is but hours away by car. All of us were in shock and it was therapeutic. I'm not sure how much thought I gave to the fact that he was not a Christian minister that day. But later in the term I heard him on the telephone talking with someone who wanted him to talk on late night radio. I was blown away by the things he said. This "heathen" was saying he had committed himself to educating the world about this important topic--a mission. I had thought only Christians could be that dedicated to Virtue. Next I heard him complain that they were asking him to talk too late; he would be willing to talk late but his wife goes to bed early and it would be awkward for him to be talking late on the phone with her already in bed. Wow! This man was--why, he was THINKING OF OTHERS! Not only that, he was actually willing to make a sacrifice for what he believed in--SELF-SACRIFICE.

 

This was almost more than I could digest. So much virture in an unbeliever, in a man who didn't even believe in God. My church had really seriously messed up. I had to tell them first opportunity I got. They would be ever so glad to find out that the world was not as bad as they thought it was. They could stop being so fearful. Wouldn't that rid them of a lot of troubles? I was sure they would welcome the news.

 

They didn't. They wouldn't even listen to me. I couldn't even get anyone's attention to tell the story.

 

Anyway, Michael, see what I did? I went at it differently from you. You are asking: Who is the authority on right and wrong? I am asking: What is right and wrong?

 

I'm not sure that I've ever shared this stuff in such detail on here but you seem to be asking the same questions I was asking not so long ago. And if it helps another person I am willing to share. It's a way to get my story down before I forget it altogether. This war in Iraq drags on so long I almost forget what the world was like before. This class was when it happened. The first day of class the prof asked whether we think holy wars still happened. We as a class were rather doubtful. We had no frame of reference. Didn't really know what a holy war was. Just something from the history books.

 

September 12, 2001 he reminded us of that question. He told us we now had our answer; that attack was a holy war. I guess the backlash is a holy war, too. Michael Persinger, who studies the psychological relationship between neurons in the brain and religious experience, says:

 

The research has been encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and group degradations are coupled implicitly to god beliefs and to the presumption that those who do not believe the same as the experient are somehow less human and hence expendable.

 

http://oldwebsite.laurentian.ca/neurosci/_...e/Persinger.htm

 

Basically he is saying that he is doing this research because history proves that most wars and genocides are caused by the religious idea that people of a different religion are less human.

 

I think if we can prove with science that wars are caused by the firing of neurons we are onto something. The Church of Rome, and descendents, is built on nothing more and nothing less than neurons firing away in the human brian. Cathedrals are builts. Wars are waged. Empired rise and fall. All of this on some inscrutably tiny things inside the human skull.

 

Islam is the same. So is Buddhism. So is Hinduism. And all the other world religions, large as well as small.

 

As Persinger says:

 

The research is not to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience but instead to determine which portions of the brain or its electromagnetic patterns generate the experience.

 

Likewise, I do not want to demean anyone's religious/mystical experience. But I consider it important to understand that we not impose our experience on the entire human race. As my professor says, "Religion is all in the feelings." And I would add, it originates in the human psyche and is projected onto the screen of the universe. (I am borrowing "projected onto the screen of the universe" from some author but forget whom.)

 

That's a lot of thoughts. Not sure if all of it is helpful.

[R. S. Martin]

(Question: what motivates y'all to active kindness? Passive obedience to the "thou shalt not's" of our world is a smart, but not a particularly ethical choice. It's the above-and-beyond activities that interest me most.)

 

I am committed to my own happiness. It makes me happy to make others happy.

 

I am also committed to honesty and fairness because that is required for wholeness, which is also required to make me happy.

 

Your rules for deontology are the basic principles I believe we should live by but they are rather complicated. I just say: You can do what you like so long as you don't hurt yourself or others.

 

The thing is, that boils down to your princples. As does what I described above. There are a variety of ways of saying the same thing. Or "All ways lead to Rome."

[Kenny]

Question: what motivates y'all to active kindness?

 

Great post! I enjoyed and appreciated what you had to say.

 

Four things in particular motivate me to active kindness. First, being kind and doing what I consider to be "the right thing" gives me a feeling of worth. It feels great to compliment someone, to help someone, to love someone. Extending myself to others leaves me feeling like I have accomplished something that wouldn't have been done otherwise. Second, I'm motivated to be kind because of the fact that someone is deserving of kindness. This isn't a consistent factor because I'm, at times, kind to total strangers. But for the most part, I enjoy and benefit from returning kindness to an individual or a group of individuals because they've been kind to me or because they, themselves, have shown kindness. Third, I'm motivated to be kind when I see a need. It could be a stranger or a friend, but it's easy to see when someone needs a helping hand or a kind word. This is different than deserving kindness. They actually NEED it and whether or not I feel they've earned a measure of kindness, I'm moved to extend myself to them. As an example, a couple in our community recently lost their home to a fire. To put it simply, they need help. Responding to that call is unavoidable because I shudder imagining myself in that situation. I would hope someone would help me put my life back together. I wouldn't expect it or demand it, but I'd sure take any assistance I could get. And, that's what a community SHOULD do.

 

Since we're discussing morals, kindness, ethics and the like, I wanted to point out something that hasn't been mentioned now that the holidays are over. I feel it's relevant because what's really being discussed here is whether or not mankind is capable of knowing and doing good on his own or if mankind is dependent on God to give and enforce morality. Thanksgiving and Christmas are times when the church and Christians are really out and about doing their thing in the name of God. One of the main reasons I detest that part of the year is because the nightly news and the newspapers are jam packed with images and stories of Christians helping the poor and needy. Well, here it is, the middle of February and I guaran-damn-tee you that the same people who were needing food and clothing and a lot of the basics of life are still there and still needing. Where are the Christians now? I already know the answer in my little part of the planet. They've already gone about their business and won't give a second thought to a neighbor who's propane tank is sitting at less than 10% right now and many more cold nights and days are on the way. The little girl who got some really cool presents from the local church the week before Christmas will be standing out at the bus stop Monday morning wearing two shirts because she doesn't own a coat and her shoes are wet and filthy. The elderly couple who opened the door to news cameras and city officials and accepted the 20 lb. turkey from the mayor still can't afford to pay for their medicine AND their groceries.

 

This brings me to the fourth reason why I'm motivated to active kindness. I feel that I'm bringing a measure of justice to those who are the recipients of the once a year game playing and conscience easing (so glad that word was mentioned earlier) and an indictment against Christians and the church as a whole. It's not hard to find these people. They're right in your neighborhood. NOW is the time they need kindness. They'll need it next month, too. And the next. And the next. Go to Wal Mart and pick up some underwear, socks, a coat and a $50 gift card and take it to the family with the scruffy little boy who plays in the ditch by the road you drive by every morning. Go talk to your local pharmacist and ask him which little old man needs help filling his meds. He'll tell you! Stop for a minute and look around at the people you come into contact with every day - maybe even co-workers - and see who is struggling. The church isn't! They're busy with their programs and in carrying on with business. They're waiting for the needy to come crawling... and they'll give them a bit of help along with tales of how much better life would be if they only had Jesus. How I love to circumvent that system! And the more anonymous I can be, the better. In Biblical terms, my motives are hateful to the church, self serving, and are not bringing glory to God and are, therefore, filthy rags before him. In terms of morality and humanity, I sleep damn good at night. Damn good.

[Mike D]

Many of the laws in Germany (and I guess in America too) are build upon the Bible (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong...).

But are these really based upon the Bible or are they just common sense? Does anyone really need a Bible to tell them killing is wrong?

 

And by the way, the Bible contradicts itself on this (yes, the Bible has contradictions, shocking I know). Although God commands "do not kill", there are many commands from god in the Babble to kill certain people (kill those you hear curse, those who work on the sabbath, homosexuals, disobedient children, adulterors, blasphemers, idolators, etc). Did you also know you're supposed to offer your firstborn son as a sacrafice to the Lard? (Exodus 22:29) Unfortunately that involves killing him

[Ouroboros]

Many of the laws in Germany (and I guess in America too) are build upon the Bible (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong...).

But are these really based upon the Bible or are they just common sense? Does anyone really need a Bible to tell them killing is wrong?

Exactly. How is it possible that all cultures, ancient and modern, in the western world and eastern, and in all religions, they all have "killing is wrong" and some form of silver or golden rule in one way or another. Even the Dao has a form of golden rule in it, and it's frigging old.

 

So the question is, if humans have this idea in all cultures, then of course Christians say it was planted there by God. Well, then the argument that we need Christianity and the Bible to know it, falls flat on the ground. No need to have a religion or a holy book to tell us what God supposedly already imprinted in us, is there?

 

And by the way, the Bible contradicts itself on this (yes, the Bible has contradictions, shocking I know). Although God commands "do not kill", there are many commands from god in the Babble to kill certain people (kill those you hear curse, those who work on the sabbath, homosexuals, disobedient children, adulterors, blasphemers, idolators, etc). Did you also know you're supposed to offer your firstborn son as a sacrafice to the Lard? (Exodus 22:29) Unfortunately that involves killing him

That's very true. It's very inconsistent.

 

But I think I understand that part better now. I think the authors knew that killing had to be done at times, but the phrase "Killing is wrong" was more like a guide, or generic template, not an absolute statement. Just like justice works in our country right now. Justice is served when each case is looked at in particular, but in general terms we all agree that killing is something we should avoid. There are justified killings, like war or self defense.

 

The problem with the Bible though isn't that the command is in it, but that it doesn't explain the conflicts and problems in the case when morality breaks down. There will always be a situation when a generic command doesn't work but has to be looked at individually, and philosophers and law makers know this, but the Bible writers did not. So in that sense, the Bible wasn't even written by someone with fundamental understanding of morality, but only on an understanding on a very shallow level.

 

This proves that whoever inspired the Bible wasn't updated on human psyche, but only had a rudimentary and external view. Wouldn't God who supposedly created humans have all the answers and be able to explain all these things? Of course he would. So it shows either that God didn't inspire the Bible, but faulty humans, or it shows that God failed in inspiring a complete instruction to those who wrote it and the Bible is still a very sloppy literature. It cheapens humanity of the answers for the difficult questions.

[Thurisaz]

When people want to live together, they need rules and structures. Who should make the rules? Who should decide about the structures?

 

Reason and compassion.

You don't want others to steal your stuff. You don't want others to kill you. Et cetera, et cetera. When one intrudes on the life of others without a very damn good reason (e. g. a police detective investigating whether a suspect's guilty or not), it's normally wrong.

 

That said, whenever someone says "without (insert your deity of choice here) there are no morals", I see another person I don't want to ever meet (not when I'm unarmed that is). If this one suddenly decides that her deity wants her to kill me, what's to stop her?

 

Many of the laws in Germany (and I guess in America too) are build upon the Bible (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong...). Is there at last something good about the bible? Or are those laws "universal" laws (wherever they come from)?

 

Being a German, I don't see how "many laws" are built upon da wholly babble. There are parallels of course... the universal things that pretty much every decent human society has figured out whether it knew da babble or not (killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc.). But that's far from "all's built upon the book'o'bullcrap".

 

And yes, some parts of da babble are pretty much okay. If only that was the only thing in the book... how much better off would the world be?

(Same goes for the koran by the way...)

[Thurisaz]

As a german I know about the fact how easily people can get "new" values and "new" laws to act upon. At the end there is no bad concsiousnes (I know this word is wrong, but I do not have my dictionary).

 

Yeah, if people aren't well-educated and trained (and willing!) to use their brains, serious shit can happen. Our country's past is by far not the only example...

 

...I read that quote somewhere, don't remember where, or who said it: "People think that in a democracy people get the government they want. Rather, they get the government they deserve."

Pretty much down the same road, no?

 

Honestly, as I see it, education is the key. Provide a decent education (including ethics) to the people, and things can't go too wrong. Of course the "how" is one niflhel of a problem...

 

The "Do what you will, so long as it harms none" seems to be a good rule . But as a rule for an society that loves "a simple life" or casting shows this seems to be not enough. Is my view of our western culture too negative?

 

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It stands to reason how many "mind candy junkies" (think of those casting shows...) would willingly accept everything, even a new dictatorship or something equally disgusting.

But yes, if people become too used to having others guide their lives... it's time to be concerned. Sadly.

[Thurisaz]

You are right, that I think, that this world would need some wise god in heaven taking care about it. But if he is in charge, why is this world such a mess? All the starving kids, terror, violence, death, pain.

 

What about the xiang claim, that this world would be a paradise if we all would keep the laws of god? Would it be a better place? They say, that this world is a piece of shit, because we do not obey god. I mean he is in charge of all the beauty, created flowers and so on, but on the other hand (the really important stuff) is in control of satan? Weird idea.

 

According to christian doctrine, this world must be exactly how their gawd wants it. Consider: The monster is supposedly omni-everything. If something would go against its will, it would know in advance, it would have all the means to keep it from happening, it would even (being supposedly the creator of it all) simply have created the world a different way so that all happens just like it wants it to.

But don't tell that to them morontheists, they go DUH! whenever you try

 

And yes it is true, that it is always MY choice. The important thing about this is, that I know, that I have a choice. If I put this choice in the hands of someone else, even a god, I give away the emotional resposibility for my deeds. This could be an important point about it. People who know about their resposibility, they will treat other people right, people who give away this responsibility to someone else, will cause trouble.

 

Yup. You are free to do whatever you want, as long as you accept that you are responsible for any consequences. If you absolutely want to murder someone, no force in the world can keep you from doing it forever... but oh boy will you suffer the consequences once they find out about it. If you absolutely think you can handle that, fine (not fine with me, but... you know what I mean). If not, you're a true dumbarse if you kill someone anyway. There will be no one to point at and claim "he/she/it made me do it! I'm innocent!". Nothing like the "Get out of jail free" card them morontheists all expect to have just because they are cultists.

 

That thought alone should keep people from doing many abominable things, as I see it.

[Thurisaz]

I can see what I would be capable of, I know about my own thoughts (no I am not Hannibal Lecter!) all this greed and anger inside. Right now it is in control, but what would happened if I and the entire humanity would loose control? I am thinking about the terrible things going on in Africa (Kenya), the stuff that happened in former Yugoslavia. So they very often lost control.

 

Yes, we are all just humans. We are not perfect. Every now and then we will make mistakes, some more serious than others. It is our responsibility toward our fellow humans to try to avoid serious mistakes as best we could. If we try and fail, well, shit happens. If we don't even try, we deserve a beating - and maybe even worse.

 

Maybe it is just the xian thinking inside of me of being an evil animal, that needs to be guarded. That is one thing I have learned during my xian time, that everything good came from god and everything evil came from me. No good thing, that I could be proud of, just evil stuff I would have been ashamed of.

 

Ah yes, the inhumanity of the cult. Fortunately I never got sucked into a morontheist coven, my christian times were all spent in the mainstream German Lutheran church... and I'm damn happy about that, looking around today and musing how it might have been in another cultist group.

 

Seriously, this total polarization "totally good or totally evil" is one of the biggest pieces of crap about the whole of morontheism if you ask me.

[Michael]

Good morning Thurisaz,

 

according to the xian doctrine human beings have a free will and they "sin" or do good stuff. God knows about it, but he accepts our choice, although millions of people are dying and suffering because of our choices. The free will is important, because, that makes free love possible. God looks down from heaven and feels sad about our choices, but he accepts it. He sufferes because of all our evil deeds, but he gave the life of jesus, so that the connection between him and us could be "reapired". That is what I have learned.

Like Lewis wrote, god do not want robots.

[Ouroboros]

Good morning Thurisaz,

 

according to the xian doctrine human beings have a free will and they "sin" or do good stuff. God knows about it, but he accepts our choice, although millions of people are dying and suffering because of our choices. The free will is important, because, that makes free love possible. God looks down from heaven and feels sad about our choices, but he accepts it. He sufferes because of all our evil deeds, but he gave the life of jesus, so that the connection between him and us could be "reapired". That is what I have learned.

Like Lewis wrote, god do not want robots.

What's seriously flawed with that Christian reasoning is that we most of the time end up in situations that we didn't plan or really wanted. We also become the person we are by the experiences we get. For instance, we might fall away from religion because of the things we learn and the things we experience, and many of these things are caused by circumstances we have no control over. In the end, we might (according to Christianity) end up in Hell, only because we made the "wrong" choices based on "faulty" information, and we had not other source of the "good" information at hand. Take for instance the question which one of all the 30,000 cults of Christianity is the right one? Lets say that 50% of them are good enough for God for salvation, but that still means that 50% of the Churches right now are educating and making people becoming false Christians and hence (unknowingly) will be tortured for eternity for that. It's insane. It just doesn't work. What if someone is born into a false Christian religion? Will God send them to Hell for believing in the false version of Christianity? Lets say we have one version that don't believe in the trinity, will they still go to Heaven?

 

The only way I could make some sense out of Jesus and salvation would be if it was stated more like this: we are all sinners, but we know what is right and wrong. If we do mostly right, God will have mercy on us and we'll go to Heaven. If we intentionally do bad and evil things, we'll be punished for it for some time, but eventually we will have paid our debts too. But if we want to avoid the temporary torture and get "God's medicine" that will help us become better people (but no results guaranteed) and hopefully avoid become so bad that we have to be punished for it, we'd have to become Christian.

 

If Christianity was preaching it more like that, at least it wouldn't be completely stupid, (only somewhat stupid), and it would at least admit the problems, and it wouldn't make Christianity the only "salvation" for a humanity. It would only make it one of the methods to make it a bit easier to become good. But do you ever hear anyone preach that way? Hardly! Since the pastors goal isn't to save people from eternal torture, but only to gain a few more tithing members to pay their salary. Unfortunately greed and hunger for power is what drives religion on that level.

[Michael]

The only way I could make some sense out of Jesus and salvation would be if it was stated more like this: we are all sinners, but we know what is right and wrong. If we do mostly right, God will have mercy on us and we'll go to Heaven. If we intentionally do bad and evil things, we'll be punished for it for some time, but eventually we will have paid our debts too. But if we want to avoid the temporary torture and get "God's medicine" that will help us become better people (but no results guaranteed) and hopefully avoid become so bad that we have to be punished for it, we'd have to become Christian.

 

I know xians who would describe it this way. And they would say, that this medicine is jesus. On the other hand they would insist, that good deeds alone are not enough, because we are no jews. And then we have the problem, that jesus raised the standards of the law to a level, that we can not reach alone. As far as I know, the law was designed to make people recognise, that they can not save themselves (my good xian education breaks through ) They SHOULD fail.

 

The most irritating point is, that most of the people will not go to heaven, only a small bunch. So when we have 90 % in hell and maybe 10 % in heaven, can we call this a glorious victory of christ? (My old pastor believed, that only 2 % are born again xians and would go to heaven, because all catholics are lost)

[Grandpa Harley]

One guaranteed way to get my lynching face on is to call me a sinner... they can speak for their own damned selves... In terms of sinning... I've never buried one of my bowel motions, I like pork, I've often blasphemed, I've never stoned someone for being gay or anyone for any of the stoning offences...

[Ouroboros]

I agree, and I like to add that the problem with Christianity and Christians is that it wants so hard to be special and exclusive. My little "gospel" I made, was just to show that if it was more like Buddhism, more open and inclusive, then I would find it more palatable. And the reason why it usually is not, is because it's focused at the thing that Gramps mention, "sin". If they didn't have the "sin" concept (which is totally invented - there's no clear definition of what sin is), they wouldn't have the whole "you have to be saved" or "you have to be born again". If Christianity was just another tool in the toolbox for humanity to fix itself, it would be good. But we know from experience that Christianity doesn't do shit. The percentage of criminals isn't lower in the Christian community, but it seems like they rather have a higher rate. So it's a big failed experiment.

[hereticzero]

The Golden Rule concept is found in all cultures, with or without religion. We know to treat others as we want to be treated and how not to treat someone as we do not want to be treated. The ways in which a tribe or other means of a society stay together is by treating each other humanely according to their customs. What passes for propper in our society may not in someone elses's but that is a policy of religion is to police morals.Most laws are passed to protect religious beliefs such as pertaining to drinkin (DUI, hours of a bar to operate, etc.), prostitution, drugs, etc. nonviolent consentual 'offenses' are laws that pertain to religious beliefs. We have other law--common laws--we use to use for keeping the peace between ourselves--this was using the common golden rule to determine how the average person would react to certain situations. Now we use political law that protects us from ourselves, and we have no rights beyone what is legislated to us. In the US, the President assumes all laws not found in the Constitution are his to use at his leisure. The Judicial system decides if his laws are Constitutional. We have freedom to do as we want until someone writes a law that denys our freedom. Our govt. does not believe common law is adequate to rule our interaction or thoughts. Yes, they even police our thoughts now. We know in our own hearts what is right and wrong morally, without the govt. writing it down for us to follow. Our govt. is so out of step because of religious influence in the laws that most of what is passed as law is only religious doctrine preaching through the laws of the govt. It is virtually impossible to find anything not contaminated by christianity or other religious influence.

[Michael]

Thank you for all your replies. They help me to think in new ways about my old questions.

I discovered, that the bible is not a good place to look for laws that can make this world a better place ("kill gay people, kill all unbelievers, stone women, slauter children" and all this stuff"). I also found out, that it is important, that you do not give away the responsibility for your deeds.

I still do not trust a crowd and I know politicians do not trust the people either.

The Golden Rule concept is real, although I do not understand it perfectly.

 

So again thank you for your thoughts.

[R. S. Martin]

Thank you for all your replies. They help me to think in new ways about my old questions.

 

<snip>

 

I still do not trust a crowd

 

You're on the track to a better world--thinking critically. Trust only your own perception. Never trust a crowd or a stranger. I'm so glad Thurisaz had time to answer your questions that pertained specifically to German culture and history. I see him as a very intelligent man and I do trust him because what he says makes sense with everything else I know about the world.

 

I guess that is one of my standards for whom or what to trust--if it is consistent with everything else I know about life and the way the world works. For me, the scientific method is key because it is built on the theory of cause and effect, i.e. when you do this that happens. All world class education is built on the scientific method. For that reason, when a mainstream scientist makes a statement we know it uses the scientific method as a foundation. Any other methodology is built on that, and must be explained in his research report.

 

All the research is systematically documented, and a paper trail can be tracked down by anyone who understands the field and wants to check up on it. This is the kind of track record kept by all respectable academics. When academics get sloppy in this, and start skipping steps, they are suspect. There are peer reviews where people specializing in the same field read and critique each other's work. In this way, the academic community is self-policing. It is true that frauds and bribes can slip through because there are rotten apples in every barrel. Politics plays a major role. However, for the most part, when this level of critique and cross-examination goes into something--whether one's own thinking or the topic of one's research, it is generally trustworthy.

 

To answer your original question: Who decides about right or wrong? I think you are the person who decides what is right and wrong in your own life and I think you are the person who bears the consequences of your decisions, as well as everyone who is impacted by those decisions. This can be scary at first, but when one starts thinking critically one realizes how much control one actually has over what decisions one makes. It takes quite a bit of heavy-duty thinking but the human brain is equipped for that.

 

Don't trust the crowds, though. Most people are too lazy to think that much.

[R. S. Martin]

I had been going to add a few links on scientific method to serve as one example on critical thinking.

• Steps of the Scientific Method excellent website
  
• Scientific Method Wikipedia Article
  
• Introduction to the Scientific Method from a school course outline
  

Another place to find examples of critical thinking is logic as in philosophy. My favourite place to start reading is the Secular Web.