Is a God Needed for Morality?

[Midnight Star]

The word Christianity is interesting, when you think about it ... there's really no other word that I can imagine, which brings about emotions ranging from awe to animosity. But here's an interesting note to consider in reguards to religions other than Christianity ...

If any individual or group claims to be of a certain religious order, and doesnt follow that order properly, are they still considered of that order? Think Al Queda for one example (not politically but religiously). They don't follow the Quran as it's written, but use it as a tool to bring about personal, political or social gain - changing it's meaning to suit their own personal goals. In todays society, even those of the non-muslim groupings don't call them muslims, but know they are using the (muslim) religious practices for their own "purposes"; even true muslims don't call them muslims. So if they are not considered a true muslim, why would any other discipline or religion be different? This is where Christianity stands alone ... anything done in that name, whether it's scriptural or not tends to be held against it. It's really an interesting thing to happen if you think about it ... why is only that religion held responsible for those that break the rules? Is it that those that really don't believe it God, resent him (in this way, do believe, but are angry he doesnt change things) for not keeping those from doing things in his name, bad things, to others? It's something to think about.

-----

Mike.

 

[lamont]

The word Christianity is interesting, when you think about it ... there's really no other word that I can imagine, which brings about emotions ranging from awe to animosity. But here's an interesting note to consider in reguards to religions other than Christianity ...

If any individual or group claims to be of a certain religious order, and doesnt follow that order properly, are they still considered of that order? Think Al Queda for one example (not politically but religiously). They don't follow the Quran as it's written, but use it as a tool to bring about personal, political or social gain - changing it's meaning to suit their own personal goals. In todays society, even those of the non-muslim groupings don't call them muslims, but know they are using the (muslim) religious practices for their own "purposes"; even true muslims don't call them muslims. So if they are not considered a true muslim, why would any other discipline or religion be different? This is where Christianity stands alone ... anything done in that name, whether it's scriptural or not tends to be held against it. It's really an interesting thing to happen if you think about it ... why is only that religion held responsible for those that break the rules? Is it that those that really don't believe it God, resent him (in this way, do believe, but are angry he doesnt change things) for not keeping those from doing things in his name, bad things, to others? It's something to think about.

-----

Mike.

Uhm, al Qaida is full of followers of the wahabbist / salafist / qutbist schools of Islam which generally follow the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah. They are characterized by rejecting practices of shiism and sufism which they regard as polytheistic, and they reject Ijtihad. They do not believe in the interpretation of the Qur'an and believe that they are following the literal interpretation of that book. They also want to impose strict Sharia law on all islamic countries and establish a new Caliphate. They believe that they are more True(tm) Muslims than any others.

Trying to define them as not being True(tm) Muslims would be useful if it could be done like a geometric proof. If everyone agreed on that, it would immediately undermine their entire religious philosophy and the whole movement would collapse, but I doubt its going to be that easy. The main problem with these movements are that they're rooted in the 13th and 14th centuries and have not evolved in a way which makes them very compatible with modern times.

And I don't understand how you can think that Christianity stands alone. Islam does come under attack all the time from people who don't see past the fact that the OBL and the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic. People (generally anti-semites) routinely hold all Jews accountable for the actions of the state of Israel, and for the actions of the most right-wing and orthodox of the Jewish people living in Israel. I don't see how Christianity is unique in this regard.

And I'm having trouble just parsing your last sentence... You seem to be trying to argue that those who critisize all of Christianity for the actions of a few are doing so because they resent the Christian God and secretly believe in Him. Which is really some fantastically good mental gymnastics to arrive at the idea that everyone secretly believes in your God. A much easier solution to that problem is that humans are prone to generalize.

 

[JessH]

God is my copilot!

God was my copilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him.

~Jess

 

[scuba.ie]

Morality does not require a belief in god. I personally don't really see a need to say any more on the subject.

~Jess

Totally agree with Jess on this. While risking a thread hijacking: Do we have free will if we are purely the sum of every experience in our lives? This totally relates to morality though

 

[Midnight Star]

Which is really some fantastically good mental gymnastics...

This type of reasoning ("fantastically good mental gymnastics") seems to permeate threads like these, don't you think? It's a verbostic and educationally inversive pattern that i've noticed over the course of these posts. Now not to seem condescending, overly educated, or prideful in persuading the outcome of a given instance using verballic overload ... but I think i've made a very good point; simple and true.

PS: I doubt that half the words i've used in this dispensational context are even a literary factuality. ... sorry, I just couldn't resist.

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

If any individual or group claims to be of a certain religious order, and doesnt follow that order properly, are they still considered of that order? Think Al Queda for one example (not politically but religiously). They don't follow the Quran as it's written, but use it as a tool to bring about personal, political or social gain - changing it's meaning to suit their own personal goals. In todays society, even those of the non-muslim groupings don't call them muslims, but know they are using the (muslim) religious practices for their own "purposes"; even true muslims don't call them muslims. So if they are not considered a true muslim, why would any other discipline or religion be different? This is where Christianity stands alone ... anything done in that name, whether it's scriptural or not tends to be held against it. It's really an interesting thing to happen if you think about it ... why is only that religion held responsible for those that break the rules? Is it that those that really don't believe it God, resent him (in this way, do believe, but are angry he doesnt change things) for not keeping those from doing things in his name, bad things, to others? It's something to think about.

Read Sam Harris, he rather effective says. “a plague on all your houses.”

This type of reasoning ("fantastically good mental gymnastics") seems to permeate threads like these, don't you think? It's a verbostic and educationally inversive pattern that i've noticed over the course of these posts. Now not to seem condescending, overly educated, or prideful in persuading the outcome of a given instance using verballic overload ... but I think i've made a very good point; simple and true.

PS: I doubt that half the words i've used in this dispensational context are even a literary factuality. ... sorry, I just couldn't resist.

You should try and resist, most of your “big” words are, in fact, rather bizarre inventions of your own that are either without meaning or that have specific meaning in a jargon that makes them out of place in the way in which you used them. It does not help communication.

 

[Midnight Star]

You should try and resist, most of your “big” words are, in fact, rather bizarre inventions of your own that are either without meaning or that have specific meaning in a jargon that makes them out of place in the way in which you used them. It does not help communication.

Really? I thought in the context and spirit of the post it was very appropriate.

-----

Mike.

 

[Bryan]

You should try and resist, most of your “big” words are, in fact, rather bizarre inventions of your own that are either without meaning or that have specific meaning in a jargon that makes them out of place in the way in which you used them. [/color]

Ouch!

 

[Thalassamania]

Really? I thought in the context and spirit of the post it was very appropriate.

-----

Mike.

I thought it meaningless. Words have definitions, ignoring those conventions or making up words just because you like the sound of them rarely (I'll give you E.E.Comings and "mudlucious" as the exeption that proves the rule, but then you're no E.E.Comings) adds clarity to a conversation.

 

[Midnight Star]

I thought it meaningless. Words have definitions, ignoring those conventions or making up words just because you like the sound of them rarely (I'll give you E.E.Comings and "mudlucious" as the exeption that proves the rule, but then you're no E.E.Comings) adds clarity to a conversation.

I see... so, then based on your observation of my text, your "hypothesis" let's say, is that because one or two didn't understand my meaning, all won't? Or, perhaps you did

Words are a representation of ideas are they not? thoughts and expressions, abstract yes, but given that vein of thought ... if someone mutters "muggwaath" pointing to their throat as they turn blue ... i'd not be able to understand their meaning or implication? I really don't believe you believe that.

-----

Mike.