Is it your faith that prevents you from being a pedophile or a murderer? - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Dilettante · #61 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

I know this was directed at non, but I'm curious:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

The argument of a true believer should be that the Bible most certainly is a moral code!
...
I'm saying however, that a true believer must believe that a non-believer cannot possibly be a moral person without the specific instruction of the holy book.

A "true believer" in what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

It is true that Christians behave immorally. We all do regardless of whose morality we use.

I think you're right on that point. Isn't that fascinating though?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

...I'm saying however, that a true believer must believe that a non-believer cannot possibly be a moral person without the specific instruction of the holy book.

Even CS Lewis made a similar argument.

Which Lewis work are you thinking of here? I've read most of his work don't recall him ever advancing such an argument (just the opposite in fact). Mere Christianity begins with a discussion of morality based solely on human nature and The Abolition of Man ends with an appendix showing the shared morality of most of the world's cultures.

Non Sequitur · #62 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Do you believe that one must accept Jesus as Savior in order to enter heaven?

yes but what that means can be a very very broad thing. What Mark is quoting is something i have said earlier about Christianity specifically (meaning church, baptism, communion and the like). Yes Christ is the only way to heaven, but i choose to look at God as someone we all want to find and Christ as the guide. Now Christianity the specific religion is the best way to find God, the best path if you will, but i am not willing to rule out the possibility of other paths existing besides Christianity. Now those paths are a lot harder to take, but i am not willing to rule out the possibility. If i say I believe in a God of mercy how can I say all 4 billion on the earth are going to Hell because they don't confess with their mouths specific belief in Christ. I can't see that as mercy. Mostly i am unwilling to make a judgment call on the issue. It's not up to me.

Non Sequitur · #63 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

For Non, I believe his chosen path is via following the path blazed by Jesus Christ. I respect that. At the same time (and again, Non, I apologize if I'm mis-stating your case), he recognizes that other faiths and paths may be just as valid a course to a glorious afterlife.

What I have trouble accepting is the notion that there's only one true path. That seems antiquated, perhaps a relic of Torquemada's Inquisition.

I don't know about "just as valid" but valid, maybe. My real issue is I don't know either way so i am going to "put the best possible spin" as Luther would say. It's a very very liberal way of looking at things, but "here I stand, I can do no other God help me."

Mark_Twain · #64 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

I don't know about "just as valid" but valid, maybe. My real issue is I don't know either way so i am going to "put the best possible spin" as Luther would say. It's a very very liberal way of looking at things, but "here I stand, I can do no other God help me."

Perhaps I was paraphrasing something I read by Dilettante. At any rate, I had a notion that yours was a faith with which I can largely identify.

JHC · #65 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

That's an interesting question, daisym. One worth thinking about some more, so I might have something more intelligent to say later. But a couple thoughts did come to mind.

First, did you perhaps mean to ask "without your religion, would you become a murder...etc"?
Faith and religion are clearly not the same thing, since its possible (perhaps common) to have either one without the other. Many people have faith in non-religious things, and the churches are full of people who don't actually believe the doctrine.

That aside, I think the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Since my Christianity (both as religion and faith) has had such an effect on my life, I'd be hesitant to try and predict where I would be if that factor were entirely removed. I'm sure it would largely depend on what factor replaced it.

But, if I may ask and answer a slightly different question (one which will have some bearing on your question), it would be "Could I ever become (or could I have become) a murderer or pedophile?" and I think the answer is undoubtedly "yes".
I've encounter more than enough occasions in which I found myself doing terrible things that I never thought I would do, always the result of a series of tiny immoral choices; choices I tried very hard not to notice I was making at the time. Thankfully those things were never quite as terrible as the ones you've mentioned; but in truth they differed only in some of the specifics.

From my experience with myself, I've learned that great evils are almost always the result of many "little" evils; a slow process of desensitization, of self-corruption. Thus, we should be very wary of every saying "I would never kill another person in cold blood" if we none-the-less allow ourselves to indulge in hatred toward another person, or worse yet, to engage in minor cruelties against them.
I firmly believe those small choices change who we are. Perhaps the person we are now would never commit a great and terrible evil, but if allow ourselves to commit these little evils we may no longer be this same person when the opportunity to commit great evil arises.

But what does any of that have to do with faith or religion? There are two points of relation for me.

First, it was my faith and religious experience that most strongly encouraged me consider the effects that making evil choices had on me and the way in which small choices became larger ones. Whether some other encouragement would have arises if I had had no experience of religion, I cannot say. And clearly there are a number of possible religions that would have had a similar effect.

Second, and more importantly, I believe in the immortality of the soul (though I admit to not being sure how it all works out). I believe that who we become here and now is not something that will just cease to exist after we die.
And this becomes extremely important when making little moral decisions.
For example, perhaps I notice that my temper is getting a little worse every year. I'm letting myself become just a tiny bit more bitter and cruel. The progression might be very slight, so slight that if I'm going to cease to exist in sixty years it will hardly become noticeable to anyone else. But, if that part of me is going to live forever and it continues to grow crueler, no matter how slowly, then it might be absolutely hell in the long run. In fact, according to what I believe religion-wise, Hell is precisely what it will become.
So my religious beliefs give me some reason additional reasons to change now, while the steps are small and changing course is easiest.

No, I don't think any specific faith/religion is necessary for being a moral human being.

I just wanted to say that I really liked your post.

The fact that you make the distinction between faith and religion, that you recognize your own frailty and credit your faith with helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, tells the tail of what I would hope we all might gain from religious faith today.

Heathen that I am, I do attend church on occasion for similar reasons. I need a sort of grounding.

proUSA · #66 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

without your faith - would you become a murderer ... or a pedophile?

My faith has nothing to do with it, it is my respect and admiration towards others that prevent me from being a murderer and pedophile.

proUSA · #67 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

But in the end religious or not , evil people will do evil things regardless if they read a religious book or pray or what have you

JHC · #68 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

ah now here is a series of good questions. As for CS Lewis, he is one of my favorite authors and his book the Great Divorce has been a great influence on my theology. That does not mean I agree with him on everything. Lewis also talks about how all people have a certain moral code that was instilled by God regardless of faith.

Ok first, yes the ten commandments are part of the moral code. The standard of judgment i use when wondering whether something is part of the moral code is if it is in line with Jesus' teachings in the Gospel. This is called the lens of the Gospel. All scripture is read with Christ in mind. Thus we identify the moral code by remembering what Christ teaches.

Parts of the original moral code don't have bearing today. In leviticus there is a ritual described on how to cleanse yourself after you have sex with a goat or sheep or something like that. That was at one time part of the moral code (it scares me to think of that because it means it must have been a problem in ancient Israelite society

) Now it's not really a problem so i don't think we need to have that as part of the code. Likewise the Jewish regulations on meat aren't necessary because of what God tells Peter in Acts (basically all things are clean). Paul talks an awful lot about how we are free from the law because of Christs death and resurrection. God sacrificed his only son so that we not be held to that strict moral standard you are talking about. The Law tells me i have sinned, it is the standard of judgment had Christ not died. Because of Christ though the law no longer condemns me. We still need the code though to tell us how much we need Christ.

Now i mean no offense by this last comment, but earlier in this thread you said you were a non-believer. This I respect but I don't quite understand the reasoning of a non-believer telling what a believer should believe. What you are talking about really leaves little room for another Christian belief and that is love your neighbor. It's hard to love someone that you are constantly saying is immoral.

anyway i must go, but good discussion maybe we can resume it later.

Oh my.
I'm not sure how to correct this as you seem determined to make me understand what I understood the first time you said it.

Religion must serve the purpose of providing morality. I quite specifically said a true believer, who "buys it hook, line and sinker" (meaning quite literally understands the text to be the religious arbiter that it is meant to be), must therefore, by simple logic, also believe that a non-believer is not moral. I'm not telling you what you should believe.

I'm not addressing a true believer in Christ as savior or a true believer in the trinity etc... I'm specifically addressing anyone who professes that the bible is the moral arbiter.

You seem to believe that the bible is not the moral arbiter (not even the New Testament). Me either. But I don't think thats what all those folks that wrote those words meant for their followers.

But this puts you in a bit of a tight spot as a Christian because I don't think those words were passed on for 2000 years to be interpreted like the Pirates Code (more what you'd call guidelines

). If they're only guidelines, why bother with all the hellfire and damnation threats? Nah...I'm pretty sure they really meant it.

Just pointing out the paradox of Christianity in this discussion of morality.

As for loving someone that you are constantly saying is immoral - indeed. Impossible I should think and yet another example of an impossible edict.

JHC · #69 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

I know this was directed at non, but I'm curious:

A "true believer" in what?

You would have to have been following the thread to understand that. My fault. Please refer to my response to Non_Sequitur. I think I made a descent explanation but if not, call me on it again.

Quote:

I think you're right on that point. Isn't that fascinating though?

I always thought so.

Quote:

Which Lewis work are you thinking of here? I've read most of his work don't recall him ever advancing such an argument (just the opposite in fact). Mere Christianity begins with a discussion of morality based solely on human nature and The Abolition of Man ends with an appendix showing the shared morality of most of the world's cultures.

I don't remember and its dark at my house or I would rummage through my bookcase and find it.
Thanks for the links. I'll see if I can find it.

goober · #70 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

I don't think it's faith that keeps people from murdering and raping and robbing, it's empathy, seeing other people as worthy of your respect.
Before there was faith there were prohibitions on "immoral" behavior.

Every society has rules that limit what members of the society may do to other members in their circle, as society progresses the circle of those considered members increases. At this point, our society draws the circle to include all humans and we are even beginning to include animals such as whales and chimpanzees as deserving special protection.

As far as the higher rate of pedophilia among clergy, I think that it's a case of self-selection, a profession where the absence of sex is part of the job description will draw higher numbers of people who have dysfunctional sex drives. But that does not mean that every priest is drawn to the calling for that reason, most are drawn by the idea of serving their community and serving their God, most, but not all.

I think the moral laws that are found in almost every religion are "natural laws", even troops of chimpanzees refrain from doing violence to members of their own troop. I doubt that this is because the God of chimpanzees has revealed a higher law for them to follow.

Morals are situational rules, many have been codified as "revealed truth" by various religions, and many other things have found their way into religions, such as food taboos, which aren't exactly natural law, although they do help preserve minority religions, by limiting social contact with the majority.

So faith does help keep some people on the straight and narrow by reinforcing the natural tendency to respect other members of the group. But so does civil law, and so do manners.

JHC · #71 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

@ Dilettante:

I can't easily quote him here and impart any understanding of his arguments which were made in Mere Christianity (predominantly but elsewhere too). However, this wiki article covers it quite well:

Quote:

Argument from morality Transcendentality of morality

C. S. Lewis used a transcendental argument from morality in his book Mere Christianity that he referred to as the "Moral Law."

1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts are transcendental in nature.
3. The best explanation of there being transcendental moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

Here, a transcendental fact is one that cannot be stated entirely in the language of the natural sciences, and that is true irrespective of human opinion. Theism provides the most intelligible explanation for such moral facts via the notion that rightness is one and the same property as the property of being commanded by God (wrongness consists in being forbidden by God).

In order for this argument to work, it should be shown that a non-theistic worldview cannot adequately account for transcendental normative facts. Historically, the burden of proof has been placed on the non-theist to demonstrate a naturalistic metaphysics for morals, as both proponents and opponents of the moral argument tend to agree that morality may be a phenomenon which shows that there is more to the real world than meets the physicalist's eye.

This is precisely why I make the argument that I do about the quandary of modern Christians. If morality is subjective rather than subjective - as they are defined by Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) - then any non-believer must be less moral (logically speaking).

JHC · #72 (**permalink**) 06-03-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

...
This is precisely why I make the argument that I do about the quandary of modern Christians. If morality is subjective rather than subjective - as they are defined by Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) - then any non-believer must be less moral (logically speaking).

what the...?

I meant to say:

If morality is subjective rather than objective - as it is defined by Christianity (and Judaism and Islam) - then any non-believer must be less moral (logically speaking).

logically speaking, it wasn't very logical.

Time for bed I think.

Non Sequitur · #73 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

Oh my.
I'm not sure how to correct this as you seem determined to make me understand what I understood the first time you said it.

Religion must serve the purpose of providing morality. I quite specifically said a true believer, who "buys it hook, line and sinker" (meaning quite literally understands the text to be the religious arbiter that it is meant to be), must therefore, by simple logic, also believe that a non-believer is not moral. I'm not telling you what you should believe.

I'm not addressing a true believer in Christ as savior or a true believer in the trinity etc... I'm specifically addressing anyone who professes that the bible is the moral arbiter.

You seem to believe that the bible is not the moral arbiter (not even the New Testament). Me either. But I don't think thats what all those folks that wrote those words meant for their followers.

But this puts you in a bit of a tight spot as a Christian because I don't think those words were passed on for 2000 years to be interpreted like the Pirates Code (more what you'd call guidelines

). If they're only guidelines, why bother with all the hellfire and damnation threats? Nah...I'm pretty sure they really meant it.

Just pointing out the paradox of Christianity in this discussion of morality.

As for loving someone that you are constantly saying is immoral - indeed. Impossible I should think and yet another example of an impossible edict.

ah I apologize. I can get carried away sometimes. Maybe now that I understand the comments i can make a better one myself.

The parts of the Bible that I hold as "Law" are the moral arbiter for me and fellow members of the body of Christ. While I believe all people are held to a standard that the Bible describes that is between them and God, not me or any other Christian. I reject other Christians labeling people immoral, saying others are going to Hell and the like based on non-belief because Christians do many immoral things themselves ("why do you focus on the speck in your neighbor's eye when you have a log in your own" to quote Christ in Matthew). Christians, myself included, have enough problems with morality to be dealing with without labeling others immoral simply based on non-belief.

Oh and yes it is a paradox, but that is a whole other discussion

Dilettante · #74 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I just wanted to say that I really liked your post.

The fact that you make the distinction between faith and religion, that you recognize your own frailty and credit your faith with helping to keep you on the straight and narrow, tells the tail of what I would hope we all might gain from religious faith today.

Heathen that I am, I do attend church on occasion for similar reasons. I need a sort of grounding.

Thanks, JHC.