OK, Now what?

[a midnight star]

OK, so you are no longer a christian. What yardstick do you use, in place of the bible to measure your "morals". And isn't changing your mind on what you that was right a betrayal of yourself?

 

I am weary of posting too much on why I ask this. I do not want anybody to think that I am judging or that I mean to offend anybody here. Most of you have been so kind to me.

 

I am no longer a christian, but I still feel like some things are still wrong. I haven't changed my "morals" or what I think is right or wrong, just because I am no longer a chrisitian.

 

I still believe that abortion is wrong. To me it is still taking a life. My politics haven't changed, because they weren't based on religion.

 

I am asking because this is a question I have had for a long time.

 

Confused,

Debby

[highvoltage]

Debby,

 

What you ask is not an easy question to answer, but I can tell you what I have found in my search. I no longer believe in absolute morals, or in some "cosmic" right and wrong. However, this isn't to say that there isn't evil in the world and good in the world, but then how are we to define good and bad?

 

Truth is, morality has always been relative to us, and religion only borrowed what the writers of the holy books thought to be moral (and immoral). Where we get this sense of morality from no one really knows for sure, but it probably came about when we realized that there are real people inside other bodies and souls behind other eyes. We have a sense of how we would like to be treated, and we make this connection with other people, and treat them as we would like to be treated (ideally, of course).

 

This should probably sound familiar, as it's most commonly known as the "golden rule". In all of my searching, the best rules I have found to apply to morality are two, and this is the first. I enjoy being treated with dignity and respect, so I treat others with the same dignity and respect I wish for myself.

 

The other rule is "do no unnecessary harm". Sometimes we have to make tough decisions where it's not possible that someone isn't going to get hurt, or that harm will not be done. We only have to examine the situation and act according to our conscience in doing the least harm possible. This is hard for me in that what I feel to be the best course of action for a particular situation, another person may come to a different conclusion. You mentioned abortion, which falls into this situation.

 

I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but this is the gist of what I've been able to come up with for myself in my own search. I hope it helps.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Debby,

 

I disagree with highvoltage in that I think there are moral absolutes. I just don't think they are at the same level as some fundamentalist christians claim they are.

 

For example, the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not lie" (paraphrased), yet there are some circumstances where it is morally wrong to lie, and some circumstances where it is morally right to lie (say a person who wanted to kill your family asked you where they were hidden - it would be morally right to lie to him, but morally wrong to tell him the truth). The circumstances determine whether or not the act is moral, and each individual act can be judged to be moral or not based on its full circumstances.

 

I base my morals on principles including these:

 

1. I want to continue to live and I want to have a happy and healthy existence.

2. I want the people I love to live and to have happy and healthy existences.

3. I know that other people want to live and to have happy and healthy existences.

4. I assume that other sentient creatures also want to live and to have a decent quality of life.

 

Moral acts are those that work towards these principles, immoral acts are those that work against these principles. (That's simplifying things, but gets the point across).

 

None of this requires any revelation from supernatural beings. And, in fact, revelation of morals is one of the two big problems with religious-based morals.

 

After all, how can you be sure what has been revealed? Honest and sincere christians disagree all the time about most moral issues including abortion, gay rights, etc. And christians disagree with other religions about morals as well. Who's to say what has been revealed when it is all very ambiguous?

 

The other problem with christian morals is that it's based on the whims of a god. Assuming for a moment that the christian god does exist, most christians would say that whatever he orders is moral. That means that if god says divorce is moral, then it is (just like god did in the Old Testament). Then, if god changes his mind and says divorce is immoral (as he did in the New Testament), then POOF, divorce is now immoral. Talk about moral relativism - there is no standard of morals in the christian system except for whatever their god says - no standard by which their god can be judged to be good or bad. That's a big problem.

 

I know this is an important issue for people leaving christianity, but there is a lot of material out there on secular moral systems - I think you'll feel better after you've investigated the alternative to revealed morals.

[Amethyst]

I guess I haven't really changed my mind. I've just changed my label of myself to fit my views. Except when I was a child and didn't know any better because I was brainwashed, I've believed since at least my teenage years that bigotry and intolerance are wrong.

 

I tend to live by the Wiccan rede even though I am not Wiccan or Pagan, simply because it works. I also live by the "do unto others" rule, which I have always lived by, but that predates Christianity. So I don't think it's really that much of a betrayal. It was more like I was betrayed by Christianity when I was younger and they brainwashed me not to think for myself.

 

My other major philosophy is live and let live, for the most part. As long as other people's weird beliefs aren't causing them to harm others, or inciting people to cause harm, I would say they should be free to do what they want as long as it's not illegal.

[godlessgrrl]

Eh, some version of the golden rule seems to work well for me. I usually use the Wiccan Rede flavor, but there are plenty of others (even one in the NT, iirc). Minimizing harm is a good thing to keep in mind too.

 

It's been pretty easy to reject biblical morals anyway. Kill brides for not being virgins? No thanks! Slaughter entire nations for being unbelievers? Uh, I don't think so. I just ain't the slaughterin' kind.

 

Figuring out a set of values and morals takes some thought, but it isn't something you need a bible for.

 

By the way, you don't have to abandon all of the values you held when you were Xian just because you aren't Xian anymore.

[a midnight star]

OH, I agree that to use the bible for moral guidance is nieve(sp) at best.

 

But I still feel like some things are still wrong. I don't know. I am still confused on a lot.

 

I agree with the "live and let live" to me abortion is opposed to this. To answer a question that was asked in another thread.

 

If abortion is illegal, what would you do to those who have abortions.

 

NOTHING. This comes from experience, so please be kind with your opinions.

 

The absolute feeling of devastation that I felt after an abortion is worse than any jail sentence. Again, I CAN compare from experienceing both. To me that would be punishment enough. It is the DR. that should be put in jail.

 

Sex.

This is where I disagree with the bible. Who does it hurt? Nobody.

 

There are so many. But for me to change my feelings on some of this would be like betraying myself.

 

I know what I want to say, just can't seem to get my thoughts together.

[Amethyst]

If abortion is illegal, what would you do to those who have abortions.

 

NOTHING. This comes from experience, so please be kind with your opinions.

 

The absolute feeling of devastation that I felt after an abortion is worse than any jail sentence. Again, I CAN compare from experienceing both. To me that would be punishment enough. It is the DR. that should be put in jail.

 

But they won't, because the fundies (keep in mind I'm NOT including you with them) want the doctors AND the women put in jail for the rest of their lives. The fundies won't allow the women to stay out of jail because they want to be right above all else, and to have the ability to push their views on others by punishing them for disagreeing will just make them more right. Those religious extremists are the ones who would go bomb abortion clinics in protesting...they're not going to let whoever disagrees with them just get away with it. They think they are fighting a holy war. That's their mentality. You can't reason with people like that.

[a midnight star]

Agreed!

[a midnight star]

FOrgive me for being rude and not thanking you all for your posts. It has given me a lot to think on.

 

Thanks,

Deb

 

****The fundies won't allow the women to stay out of jail because they want to be right above all else, and to have the ability to push their views on others by punishing them for disagreeing will just make them more right****

 

I know what you mean. When my sister was sixteen she was sexually active, so I gave her some condoms. When my WOF father found out he was upset and degraded me for do so. When I pointed out that she was already active and that these could save her life, he stated "well, I'd rather see her dead"

 

Needless to say, I was stunned speechless. How do you argue against that?

[Amethyst]

Needless to say, I was stunned speechless. How do you argue against that?

 

 

You can't. Those people are brainwashed. You can't argue with brainwashing until they start to question it.

[highvoltage]

I struggle with this topic too. I just wanted to post some of my thoughts on it, and maybe you can find them useful. I've started reading Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. I can give you a synopsis when I'm done. (If I understand it well enough!! ) I think it should be interesting to see what a real philosopher has to say on the subject.

 

-hv

[a midnight star]

****You can't. Those people are brainwashed. You can't argue with brainwashing until they start to question it. ****

 

That and there is some mental disturbance there. My mother has a "god" complex. She feels like no matter what wrongs she has to do to "make" things the "right way" then it is ok. She is above even the biblical morals as long as the "good" wins out. There isn't any concern for others or their feelings or who she may hurt.

[Lanakila]

The supposed Christian principle of: Treat others like you want to be treated, which came from Buddha or earlier is a good place to start. Human beings are selfish creatures who love pleasure above all else, but our seeking of pleasure should not harm other people.

 

Live life to its fullest.

Do no harm to other people.

 

Most moral questions fall under those two principles.

[Godless Dave]

OK, so you are no longer a christian. What yardstick do you use, in place of the bible to measure your "morals".

 

Well, I was never a Christian, so I didn't have nearly the same experience. The moral yardstick I've always used is my own conscience. When in doubt, I ask if someone is getting hurt by something I'm doing.

 

 

And isn't changing your mind on what you that was right a betrayal of yourself?

 

No. Nothing is set in stone. As we get older we change our opinions on some things after learning new facts or seeing things from new persepectives.

[trashy]

But they won't, because the fundies (keep in mind I'm NOT including you with them) want the doctors AND the women put in jail for the rest of their lives.

Really? I have never seen that espoused, about putting the women in jail. Do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it, seriously.

[bob]

The supposed Christian principle of: Treat others like you want to be treated, which came from Buddha or earlier is a good place to start. Human beings are selfish creatures who love pleasure above all else, but our seeking of pleasure should not harm other people.

 

Live life to its fullest.

Do no harm to other people.

 

Most moral questions fall under those two principles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Lana.

 

My right to swing my fist ends at your chin.

 

As for abortion, I do not like it. I think it is wrong. But I also think it is wrong to tell a woman she can not have one. What to do...what to do?

[Japedo]

What a thought provoking topic.

 

I'm pro-choice for reasons I stated on the other thread. I respect the fact that anyone who takes the pro-Life stance for their own reasons, beliefs and what not. only issues I personally have is when they wish to legislate their own beliefs on others, that's what I object to.

 

I support Gay marriage although I will never marry another women, Same goes with the abortion issue. My own free will is left up to me to determine and I believe others should have all options and free will open to them. I'm a libertarian politically and go by the philosophy of Live and let live. Each person has the right to pursue their own happiness, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's.

 

I believe people who wish to force control on other people are immoral. along with Stealing, Killing, Maiming, harming in anyway that's not a defense, lying or willfully distorting the truth to get others to do these things constitutes as immoral behavior to me.

 

 

TexasFreeThinker I think said it best when he said

 

I base my morals on principles including these:

 

1. I want to continue to live and I want to have a happy and healthy existence.

2. I want the people I love to live and to have happy and healthy existences.

3. I know that other people want to live and to have happy and healthy existences.

4. I assume that other sentient creatures also want to live and to have a decent quality of life.

 

Moral acts are those that work towards these principles, immoral acts are those that work against these principles. (That's simplifying things, but gets the point across).

[a midnight star]

And isn't changing your mind on what you that was right a betrayal of yourself?

 

Let me explain what I meant by that. It would be different if my morals were based only on the bible. But if I changed my "morals" or what I think is right just because I am no longer a christian, then it would be like betraying myself. If I changed my "morals" in a process because I thought differently then that would be a total different thing. Am I making any sense here?

 

In other words to change my morals only on because I am no longer a christian as opposed to me changing them because I "outgrew" (can't find the word I am looking for) them, then I would feel like I was betraying myself.

[Amethyst]

Really? I have never seen that espoused, about putting the women in jail. Do you have a source for that? I'd like to see it, seriously.

 

I've heard people say that at church.

[Cerise]

Let me explain what I meant by that. It would be different if my morals were based only on the bible. But if I changed my "morals" or what  I think is right just because I am no longer a christian, then it would be like betraying myself. If I changed my "morals" in a process because I thought differently then that would be a total different thing. Am I making any sense here?

 

But if you change your belief systems, aren't you already automatically changing your thinking?

 

I don't see how you can accomplish one without the other, frankly.

[narcissist]

OK, so you are no longer a christian. What yardstick do you use, in place of the bible to measure your "morals".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hedonism. I like being happy.

 

And isn't changing your mind on what you that was right a betrayal of yourself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To the contrary, its called learning.

[a midnight star]

But if you change your belief systems, aren't you already automatically changing your thinking?

 

I don't see how you can accomplish one without the other, frankly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I am not one of those who figured out the christianity was a bunch of bull. That took a while. I left christianity because I was mad at the god of christianity. Now whether or not I believe that god exists, I am still not sure. I do know that I will never go back.

 

So, no. I do not see how I could change what I believe in myheart to be right or wrong. Otherwise it would be like I was lying to myself all along. I may have been mistaken by believeing in a lying god, but I have yet lied to myself.

 

Changing my thinking is one thing if it follows "due process" but it isn't like I checked my morals at the door when I left christianity.

 

Once again, I know what I want to say, I just can't get the right words out in order to let you nderstand what I am thinking. I think that I am just not explaining myself well enough.

[Mythra]

Moral relativism of Mythra

 

1. If it feels okay, it probably is okay.

2. If it makes you feel like shit, stop it.

3. If it feels okay, but still might slam your ass into jail, better think about it.

 

simple rules for simple people

[Java]

Mine seems to be a mixture of three laws:

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (The Golden Rule.)

Do unto others as they do unto you. (The Silver Rule.)

Do what thou wilt, but do not trespass on another's will. (Crowley.)

 

Will means another person's moral system, in a way. So, if someone does not steal, do not steal from them, because theft is against their will. If someone hurts you, obviously hurting people is in their will, so OPEN SEASON!

 

The interesting thing is, I tend to subdivide myself mentally into three personalities, who combine to be Me. One is happy-go-lucky and follows the first, one is calm and rational and follows the second, and one is a domme bitch who follows the third. Weird, how things fall out...

[Godless Wonder]

My thoughts regarding abortion run like this:

 

Harming others should be avoided, because they don't like it, just as I don't like being harmed. What is required for something to be considered to "harm others?" Well, first the "other" must be capable of suffering from that harm. Is it possible to harm a rock, in such a way that the rock experiences suffering? I would say it is not possible to harm the rock.

 

What is required to experience harm? Well, since all (and I mean all) the reliable evidence which I am aware of supports the notion that our thoughts and such are wholly created by our physical brains, it would seem that a working brain of some sort would be required. How big does that brain have to be? Is a single neuron capable of "experiencing harm?" I would say no. How about two neurons? I would say again, no. So how many neurons does it take? Is it the case that the more neurons there are in a brain, the more harm is capable of being experienced? That might be a rough, imprecise way to put it, but I'm not sure it's wrong. So somewhere between a fetus having 2 neurons, and some hundred billions, the capacity to experience harm goes from nothing to, well, something a good bit more than nothing, and does so on a trajectory which, while not all tha well understood (though our understanding now is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was just 10 years ago) is fairly predictable.

 

So, I guess I'm saying I'm fairly comfortable with the notion of early term abortions, in that the I expect the fetus' capacity for experiencing harm (or anything at all) has not gotten very far along, if it has even begun, and the harm done (if any) in such cases is likely outweighed by the harm avoided. I don't think there are any people out there having abortions for the fun of it.

 

Obviously there are cases of abortion which are going to be unusually harmful, but generally these are done so as to avoid some greater harm (e.g. avoiding death of the mother).

 

I'm not comfortable with the idea of telling other people how to run their lives and causing them harm by doing so on the speculation that harm is being done to something which is, from what I have seen, not generally capable of experiencing harm.