Is it your faith that prevents you from being a pedophile or a murderer? - Page 7 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

daisym · #91 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

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.

as usual, you raise an interesting point. I ummed and arred over faith or religion - I perhaps meant both - religion, in that its obedience to your religious teachings, faith, as in if you had a crisis of faith - would that result in you turning against those religious teachings ....

Quote:

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.

hmmm. At first I was going to commend you on your honesty ... but then I thought about it ... what - you really believe that your faith/religion protects you from committing acts you know to be wrong?

I see what you say re little evils on the path ... each step makes the next step so much easier ... but the desensitization process is not reliant on a lack of faith ... it relies more on what you use to justify the acceptability - and religion can be used to do this just as easily as any other ideology.

if this is the case, your religion/faith surely won't protect you any more than your own inner parent or whatever else you want to call it?

JHC · #92 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

my response to this would take us a little off topic ... I know many people for whom belief in God is the most important aspect of their religion, but if they and you are all going to say that belief in God IS your religion - then I would have to say that you are as much a Muslim, or an orthodox Jew, and a few other groups in between, as you are a christian.

Because essentially to say that means that your religion is common to people who are spread across a range of recognised religions.

I'm so excited by this post.

This is precisely what I mean when I say that a religion is necessarily a moral arbiter and by virtue of Occam's razor, when we slice away that function, what then is left?

There is no way to be polite about it. It is logically what it is.

And that, ma'am, is why religious folk often appear to come across as judgmental. It must be so.

And that is why I say Christianity demands impossible edicts.

"Don't judge others" is NOT the entire quote: "lest ye be judged".

Christian quandary: If we are not to be judging others then we require no laws because we can't enforce them anyway. And if we are not to judge others, then how can we be offended by our covetous neighbor and if we are not offended then there is no need for cultural morality. Therefore, Jesus must not be instructing us not to judge, He must be instructing us to be better than everyone else for the times that we ARE judged. Therefore, we, as Christians following Jesus divine teachings, MUST be more moral than a non-believer.

Non Sequitur says its difficult to love someone whom you continually call immoral. So he believes then that it is best not to constantly judge (point fingers). Who said Christianity was easy? But more difficult than being Christian, is attempting the wholly unnecessary task of reconciling Christianity to modern cultural morality.

If it is to be believed that there is salvation through good deeds alone then Jesus is superfluous. But if Jesus is necessary for salvation, then we have no choice but to abide by the moral code that is Christianity. There is no nice yet honest way to put it.

Is there?

daisym · #93 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

My sentiments exactly. People have largely abstained from murder & pedophilia for millenia before the rise of Christianity. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that murder is at larger-than-normal numbers in this day & age, relatively speaking. Hell, the 20th century was the bloodiest & deadliest century in the history of humankind.

just quickly - WITHIN modern western industrialised societies - its not.

there are very high correlations between poverty, dislocation (such as during periods of mass social disruption due to famine, plague, war, social unrest, land clearances forcing peasants into cities etc) and murder and other crimes of extreme violence. Regular mass hangings in the town square have never been any disincentive to murder ... and interestingly ... I think overall murder rates are actually lower in more secular western societies than they are in more christian western societies ... I'd have to check on that ... but I think the stats would probably bear this out.

However - overall - yes the 20th Century - by virtue of its wars - both international and civil, and many of which involved poor resource rich ex colonial nations, with the winners being western interests - is the bloodiest period in history.

daisym · #94 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I'm so excited by this post.

This is precisely what I mean when I say that a religion is necessarily a moral arbiter and by virtue of Occam's razor, when we slice away that function, what then is left?

There is no way to be polite about it. It is logically what it is.

And that, ma'am, is why religious folk often appear to come across as judgmental. It must be so.

And that is why I say Christianity demands impossible edicts.

"Don't judge others" is NOT the entire quote: "lest ye be judged".

Christian quandary: If we are not to be judging others then we require no laws because we can't enforce them anyway. And if we are not to judge others, then how can we be offended by our covetous neighbor and if we are not offended then there is no need for cultural morality. Therefore, Jesus must not be instructing us not to judge, He must be instructing us to be better than everyone else for the times that we ARE judged. Therefore, we, as Christians following Jesus divine teachings, MUST be more moral than a non-believer.

Non Sequitur says its difficult to love someone whom you continually call immoral. So he believes then that it is best not to constantly judge (point fingers). Who said Christianity was easy? But more difficult than being Christian, is attempting the wholly unnecessary task of reconciling Christianity to modern cultural morality.

If it is to be believed that there is salvation through good deeds alone then Jesus is superfluous. But if Jesus is necessary for salvation, then we have no choice but to abide by the moral code that is Christianity. There is no nice yet honest way to put it.

Is there?

you know ... IF there is salvation through good deeds alone then Jesus is superfluous ... is an interesting thought. but equally interesting is the opposite ... if Salvation is only through Jesus ... why bother with the good deeds, the right action etc?

In fact - if you love Jesus ... is it even necessary to be moral and attain salvation?

Just a thought ... but I'm deserting you all ... its an hour to pumpkinhood and I have a big day tomorrow.

SMadsen · #95 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

Christian quandary: If we are not to be judging others then we require no laws because we can't enforce them anyway. And if we are not to judge others, then how can we be offended by our covetous neighbor and if we are not offended then there is no need for cultural morality. Therefore, Jesus must not be instructing us not to judge, He must be instructing us to be better than everyone else for the times that we ARE judged. Therefore, we, as Christians following Jesus divine teachings, MUST be more moral than a non-believer.

So, what if following his teachings does not require faith but that not following them requires a lack of faith?

JHC · #96 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

you know ... IF there is salvation through good deeds alone then Jesus is superfluous ... is an interesting thought. but equally interesting is the opposite ... if Salvation is only through Jesus ... why bother with the good deeds, the right action etc?

In fact - if you love Jesus ... is it even necessary to be moral and attain salvation?

Just a thought ... but I'm deserting you all ... its an hour to pumpkinhood and I have a big day tomorrow.

Exactly.

Which leaves a modern Christian with another blatantly obvious quandary which I refuse to speak.

Dilettante · #97 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I think I addressed this while you were presenting it but I'll add a little. Indeed it does take quite a bit of extraction. Seems rather cumbersome doesn't it? If we used Occam's razor here, we would conclude that the holy text is not the moral arbiter therefore, morality is not subjective, therefore the usefulness of the religion comes into question.

Did you mean objective instead of subjective in the bolded above?

But either way, I fully agree that the Bible isn't a book of moral codes and edicts. I was just trying to say that it wasn't meant to be by the people who wrote the various bits of it.

I'm not sure about the "usefulness" of religion part though. I don't think that "usefulness" is really the primary motivating factor for people who embrace religion. But I could be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

I have read your entire post and understand it. Pardon my drastic edit which was just a tidy-up for continued discussion.

No worries. My posts often benefit from a little tidying up

JHC · #98 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

So, what if following his teachings does not require faith but that not following them requires a lack of faith?

Are you saying that not following them is a positive rejection of them?

Dilettante · #99 (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

OK, I'm taking the second part of this first because its the more important:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

...Is a concept of God really necessary to achieve this?

As I think I already said (if not then I should have), No, I don't think you need to have a "concept of God" to act morally, nor does having a "concept of God" seem to guarantee moral behavior.
Forgive me if I accidentally conveyed such silly notions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark_Twain

So what, in your opinion, keeps various members of the animal kingdom in check? They don't seem to have any sort of organized religion, yet they also seem to abstain from killing one another (at least in an inter-species manner) in much smaller numbers than do humans. What could possibly cause this? Is it inate in most animals just to get along? ...

Hmmm.
My first thought on this was that I can't say I've noticed that the animal kingdom really seems to be "in check". Turn on the discovery channel and watch them rip each other to shreds and devour their own young. We generally find it remarkable when we noticed a very few species (other than humans) go out of their way to help the sick or disadvantaged of their own species.
I can't say I've seen the equivalent of an emergency aid worker in the animal kingdom, nor any real evidence of mercy or grace.

But THEN I realized that none of that matters. What we're talking about is morality, which is what you think you should do as opposed to what you, in fact, end up doing. If you think you should do X and you do, in fact, do X, then you are behaving morally (doing "the right thing), according to you. If you don't do X then you are behaving immorally (not doing what you should), according to you.
So really, we can't say whether or not animals make any moral decisions at all since we don't know if they really have a notion of what they "should" do or if they simply do stuff without considering such questions.

But given my answer at the beginning of this post, I guess it doesn't really matter. I think we both agree that one can do good or bad acts regardless of one's concept of God.

JHC · #**100** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilettante

OK, I'm taking the second part of this first because its the more important:

As I think I already said (if not then I should have), No, I don't think you need to have a "concept of God" to act morally, nor does having a "concept of God" seem to guarantee moral behavior.
Forgive me if I accidentally conveyed such silly notions.

Hmmm.
My first thought on this was that I can't say I've noticed that the animal kingdom really seems to be "in check". Turn on the discovery channel and watch them rip each other to shreds and devour their own young. We generally find it remarkable when we noticed a very few species (other than humans) go out of their way to help the sick or disadvantaged of their own species.
I can't say I've seen the equivalent of an emergency aid worker in the animal kingdom, nor any real evidence of mercy or grace.

But THEN I realized that none of that matters. What we're talking about is morality, which is what you think you should do as opposed to what you, in fact, end up doing. If you think you should do X and you do, in fact, do X, then you are behaving morally (doing "the right thing), according to you. If you don't do X then you are behaving immorally (not doing what you should), according to you.
So really, we can't say whether or not animals make any moral decisions at all since we don't know if they really have a notion of what they "should" do or if they simply do stuff without considering such questions.

But given my answer at the beginning of this post, I guess it doesn't really matter. I think we both agree that one can do good or bad acts regardless of one's concept of God.

I think you misunderstand.
We aren't talking about the concept of God. We're talking about God.

Doesn't matter if you know God is there or not, according to CS Lewis, that is where morality comes from and it is not subjective.

(By the way, yes, I f'ed up the two words earlier and thanks for the correction).

Dilettante · #**101** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMadsen

I think Mrs. M is very close to saying what this is often all about. At least in my mind. Namely by viewing morality as (almost) innate.

If something is considered to be intrinsic to human nature, it will automatically be considered god-given by anyone wearing any kind of theistic goggles. This means that morality is indeed viewed as a divine dictation but, consequently, that personal faith has very little to do with personal morality. In other words, a person is moral by virtue of divine creation, not by virtue of religious faith.

Since sensus divinitatis exists (I'd almost say as an intrinsic part of religiousity), lacking faith and yet being viewed as being as moral as the next person does not pose a paradoxial dilemma for the religious.

Well put, good sir.

Captain Trips · #**102** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

Rakkasan was trying to bait me to get me so that he could twist this thread into another excuse for him to call me anti american. he does it all the time. That should be obvious to anyone familiar with his posting style.

His post included an attack on those who oppose bush which had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I want to know what those who claim people like me are immoral, where they would be without their faith.

that has nothing to do with Bush at all.

Those of us that are familiar with YOUR posting style, are well aware that you ARE "anti-american" and have a low opinion of anyone with a beleif in God.

Your opening post looks like a poorly constructed question, centered on suggesting that "people of faith" are necessarily ill equipped to know the difference between right, wrong, good and bad.

Expect to be treated as you're treating others here.

Mrs. M · #**103** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHC

Christian quandary: If we are not to be judging others then we require no laws because we can't enforce them anyway. And if we are not to judge others, then how can we be offended by our covetous neighbor and if we are not offended then there is no need for cultural morality. Therefore, Jesus must not be instructing us not to judge, He must be instructing us to be better than everyone else for the times that we ARE judged. Therefore, we, as Christians following Jesus divine teachings, MUST be more moral than a non-believer.

Sorry, but this isn't right. The Bible does allow for us to judge within the laws of the government. It also allows for born-again believers to discipline other born-again believers WITHIN the church. What we are warned against is judging others outside of the church or the law, such as the woman at the well, where the people were condemning her as an adulterous. The people weren't acting as representatives of the government but rather as individuals condemning the morals of the woman, which is why Jesus told them that any of them that's without sin can cast the first stone.

Non Sequitur · #**104** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

you know ... IF there is salvation through good deeds alone then Jesus is superfluous ... is an interesting thought. but equally interesting is the opposite ... if Salvation is only through Jesus ... why bother with the good deeds, the right action etc?

In fact - if you love Jesus ... is it even necessary to be moral and attain salvation?

Just a thought ... but I'm deserting you all ... its an hour to pumpkinhood and I have a big day tomorrow.

wow I like this thread. It's getting my theological wheels turning

alright there is no salvation through good deeds. The Bible is quite clear on that. A person is justified by the grace through faith. But to quote the book of James "faith without works is dead." Yes faith alone is what obtains salvation, but if a person has faith they will do good works because of their faith in Christ. In John the disciples ask Jesus how they will know his followers and Jesus responds "it is by their works that you shall know them." A person does good works, follows the law, etc... not to get into heaven, but because it is the natural expression of the a person faith in Christ as his savior.

Now as for morality and salvation, it is by faith alone (sola fide in the latin) that one is saved. As I said earlier to JHC it is not morality, in this worlds sense, that Christians are trying to achieve. We are working towards righteousness. One will be moral individual though, not to try and achieve heaven because that is impossible, but because they have faith. Faith in God and Christ results in one trying to achieve that Christian righteousness.

Dilettante · #**105** (**permalink**) 06-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym