CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: Public displays of religiosity

[HoughMade]

Now, if only we could have a rule requiring ON-TOPIC POSTS!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

(I keed, I keed. I'd probably be insta-perma-banned if such a rule were enforced.)

Only 1 rule needed: Matthew 5:48

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Only 1 rule needed: Matthew 5:48

That's a lot of pressure!

 

[HoughMade]

That's a lot of pressure!

It is. That was the Speaker's point...and why He did what He did.

 

[bmbutch]

I love seeing families say grace, if I'm in public, I do as well, quietly. My wife & I disagree on this, she can be more "Pharisee typical", but hey, we're all working on being better...well, hopefully.

 

[bradmedic04]

Once in a while injecting some humor will lighten the tone and get folks calmed down.

https://youtu.be/uQHm7oItkdA

 

[mbills2223]

Once in a while injecting some humor will lighten the tone and get folks calmed down.

I like this approach. Just wish I was funny enough to do it...

 

[deal me in]

Diving the Glory to GOD is hardly arrogant nor narcissistic. How is saying God made me succesful and not myself either of those things? That is what they are doing, being HUMBLE before their Maker which is what all of us should be.

If you claim that God made you successful, you're admitting that He had the opportunity to make others successful and choose not to. You're saying that God loves you better than the nerd who lives in his parents basement, the ugly, fat, poor woman who lives on the streets, and the child dying from cancer. Believing that the all powerful creator of the universe loves you the most is the height of arrogance and narcissism.

I thank Him for all the good I receive but rather than blame Him for the bad I ask that He make me learn from this trial. He only disciplines those He calls His Own. I am thankful for even the stuff I consider bad as it helps me grow as a Christian.

That's convenient for God. Credit for the good and no blame for the bad. So, if a child from a strong Christian family gets cancer and dies, is that God's discipline? What if a child from an atheist family gets cancer and dies? Is that just bad luck since God only disciplines his own? Very confusing.

Finally, I have seen more than a few videos of ,hat needed push to break into the charts. Can I say it is for real? No, but I do believe in demonic possession.

Why does God allow demons to exist?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'

 

[sbu sailor]

I like this approach. Just wish I was funny enough to do it...

You could take a class, maybe?

 

[rambone]

I don't expect to change your mind, but there are answers to your questions.

If you claim that God made you successful, you're admitting that He had the opportunity to make others successful and choose not to. You're saying that God loves you better than the nerd who lives in his parents basement, the ugly, fat, poor woman who lives on the streets, and the child dying from cancer. Believing that the all powerful creator of the universe loves you the most is the height of arrogance and narcissism.

That's convenient for God. Credit for the good and no blame for the bad. So, if a child from a strong Christian family gets cancer and dies, is that God's discipline? What if a child from an atheist family gets cancer and dies? Is that just bad luck since God only disciplines his own? Very confusing.

Christian ethic holds that we should not obsess over worldly things. Riches, material things, even our health are essentially meaningless. We have an eternal destination to think about -- that's it. Frankly, whether you die of cancer or get hit by a truck is irrelevant; whether you die at age 10 or 100 is irrelevant. Our earthly circumstances, good or bad, may be set up in any way that God chooses -- and not equally.

Christ himself tells his followers to get rid of their worldly possessions, pick up their crosses (torture-execution devices), and prepare to be hated by the world. And Christians were subsequently put through crucifixions and beheadings, fed to lions, and all manner of barbaric deaths. There was NEVER a guarantee that being a Christian was going to be comfortable, disease-free, easy, and pleasant. No, quite the contrary.

Why does God allow demons to exist?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" — 'the Epicurean paradox'

By what standard does an atheist call anything "evil"? If people have no souls, and our existence is pure randomness, what can it possibly mean that one action is "evil" and another is "good"? If one sack of living cells harms another, its just an example of survival of the fittest, right? Death of some accidental organism is meaningless; no different from the animal kingdom. Since when does morality have meaning to an animal?

I'd be fascinated with your answer.

As for Christianity, there is a definite moral standard. And evil and good do exist. By definition, choosing against God is evil/sinful. God allows evil/sin to exist in the world because He allows us the freedom to choose. We are given the opportunity to make choices in our short time on this planet, and face consequences. In doing so we are allowed to choose our eternal destination. We were not created as robots without the ability to rebel against Him.

 

[PaulF]

By what standard does an atheist call anything "evil"? If people have no souls, and our existence is pure randomness, what can it possibly mean that one action is "evil" and another is "good"? If one sack of living cells harms another, its just an example of survival of the fittest, right? Death of some accidental organism is meaningless; no different from the animal kingdom. Since when do animals consider morality?

I'd be fascinated with your answer.

As for Christianity, there is a definite moral standard. And evil and good do exist. By definition, choosing against God is evil/sinful. God allows evil/sin to exist in the world because He allows us the freedom to choose. We are given the opportunity to make choices in our short time on this planet, and face consequences. In doing so we are allowed to choose our eternal destination. We were not created as robots without the ability to rebel against Him.

Alright, rambone.

I'll bite, and I'll be civil.

Pretend for just a minute that your God doesn't exist. It is only one more to add to a list of thousands you already don't believe in.

I'm serious. Do this for me, clear your mind. This is an exorcise.

Now pretend, in our newly Godless environment, that (completely without any warning) I draw back with all my power and strike you across the face with a used manure shovel. Even here, in our Godless refuge...it would be wrong to do so.

Why?

Well, to receive a manure shovel strike at full force to the face from a fellow human being is harmful, insulting, and unsanitary, for starters. The problem with your thesis is that even in our (imaginary, stay with me) Godless paradise we are more than a "sack of living cells". Within our living body exists our living mind. The mind has the ability to recognize the difference between being hit with a shovel by another human being...and not being hit with a shovel by another human being, and to make a decision on its own as to which one is the better state of being.

If a creature has the ability to recognize a choice for itself it has the natural right to make that choice for itself, within the boundaries of its environmental and social realities.

By striking you with my shovel I have deprived you, a fellow living being with a living mind, of your natural right to choose the best state of being for yourself. As social creatures this is likely to have dire consequences for me going forward, as others are going to use this as a barometer of my potential behaviors, and treat me accordingly. (Paul smacks people with shovels, don't lease that house with him...hmmm?)

Good and evil exist because we are imperfect creatures, and these things are within us. In order to survive as a species we have developed a sophisticated set of sensibilities that inform our dealings with one another. They have been bred into us over eons of social living, and they require nothing supernatural to function.

Okay...thanks for keeping with me.

Ram, does that seem ridiculous to you? (It might, I'm asking)

 

[rambone]

Alright, rambone.

I'll bite, and I'll be civil.

Pretend for just a minute that your God doesn't exist. It is only one more to add to a list of thousands you already don't believe in.

I'm serious. Do this for me, clear your mind. This is an exorcise.

Now pretend, in our newly Godless environment, that (completely without any warning) I draw back with all my power and strike you across the face with a used manure shovel. Even here, in our Godless refuge...it would be wrong to do so.

Why?

Well, to receive a manure shovel strike at full force to the face from a fellow human being is harmful, insulting, and unsanitary, for starters. The problem with your thesis is that even in our (imaginary, stay with me) Godless paradise we are more than a "sack of living cells". Within our living body exists our living mind. The mind has the ability to recognize the difference between being hit with a shovel by another human being...and not being hit with a shovel by another human being, and to make a decision on its own as to which one is the better state of being.

If a creature has the ability to recognize a choice for itself it has the natural right to make that choice for itself, within the boundaries of its environmental and social realities.

By striking you with my shovel I have deprived you, a fellow living being with a living mind, of your natural right to choose the best state of being for yourself. As social creatures this is likely to have dire consequences for me going forward, as others are going to use this as a barometer of my potential behaviors, and treat me accordingly. (Paul smacks people with shovels, don't lease that house with him...hmmm?)

Good and evil exist because we are imperfect creatures, and these things are within us. In order to survive as a species we have developed a sophisticated set of sensibilities that inform our dealings with one another. They have been bred into us over eons of social living, and they require nothing supernatural to function.

Okay...thanks for keeping with me.

Ram, does that seem ridiculous to you? (It might, I'm asking)

Its not ridiculous, but flawed.

We can all agree that humans are social creatures, and that social actions have consequences. If you don't do what the majority says, or the ruling class says, then life in society becomes very uncomfortable or dangerous: FACT. But these standards of society have changed wildly based on time and geography. Sure, modern-day America says (on paper) that depriving each other of life and liberty is wrong. But for most societies for most of human history, that was not true.

Let me show you how arbitrary it is to define "good" and "evil" based on what society thinks.

What if you lived in a society where your place in society revolved around obedience to a King? The King wants you to destroy his opponents. If you follow orders, you'll be rewarded. If you don't, you'll be thrown in a dungeon or beheaded.

Or, what if you lived in a society where subjugating another race was the requirement for social stature? Take your pick of a historical example. Those who conform to society are highly regarded and rewarded. Those who refuse are condemned and rejected.

Or, what if the cultural norms of your society were cannibalism and human sacrifice? No death ritual, no condo rental for you.

You see, human history is rife with these things. Oppression has been the norm, not the exception. If "good" and "evil" are based upon how our peers view us, then that often means that it is "good" to be oppressive. You follow orders, or you die. Conforming to society is a survival skill.

But, if morality comes from a consensus of people, then all behaviors are on the table -- theft, murder, torture -- because society deems them acceptable. There is no universal moral standard. There is no basis to call anything evil. Morality is whatever is popular.

On the other hand, Christians have a universal moral standard that comes from an unchanging external source. Good and Evil have a definition. Christians say that human hearts are naturally filled with depravity, and that popularity with the world is no virtue.

 

[PaulF]

Please re-read my post, I have argued no such thing.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing now, ram, unless you're trying to straw man me.

You asked "by what standard does an atheist call anything 'evil'".

I responded that we are equipped, by evolution, to assess the situation and decide what is "evil" independent of how others behave (within certain boundaries), by comparing the possible outcomes of the various actions within our own mind, and determining which is is more likely to result in a more desirable outcome for each individual. By using this basic standard we are able to set a base (better/worse) and work from there to (best possible/worst possible). The rest is a matter of application, through physical and social necessity.

You seem to be responding that I have argued that the definition of good and evil come from society. I am not. Good and evil come from within...both the source, and the definition, and both can be found without outside intervention.

I feel I have failed to make my point...and am only making it worse.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Alright, rambone.

Pretend for just a minute that your God doesn't exist. It is only one more to add to a list of thousands you already don't believe in.

I'm serious. Do this for me, clear your mind. This is an exorcise.

Now pretend, in our newly Godless environment, that (completely without any warning) I draw back with all my power and strike you across the face with a used manure shovel. Even here, in our Godless refuge...it would be wrong to do so.

Why?

Well, to receive a manure shovel strike at full force to the face from a fellow human being is harmful, insulting, and unsanitary, for starters. The problem with your thesis is that even in our (imaginary, stay with me) Godless paradise we are more than a "sack of living cells". Within our living body exists our living mind. The mind has the ability to recognize the difference between being hit with a shovel by another human being...and not being hit with a shovel by another human being, and to make a decision on its own as to which one is the better state of being.

Please re-read my post, I have argued no such thing.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing now, ram, unless you're trying to straw man me.

You asked "by what standard does an atheist call anything 'evil'".

I responded that we are equipped, by evolution, to assess the situation and decide what is "evil" independent of how others behave (within certain boundaries), by comparing the possible outcomes of the various actions within our own mind, and determining which is is more likely to result in a more desirable outcome for each individual. By using this basic standard we are able to set a base (better/worse) and work from there to (best possible/worst possible). The rest is a matter of application, through physical and social necessity.

You seem to be responding that I have argued that the definition of good and evil come from society. I am not. Good and evil come from within...both the source, and the definition, and both can be found without outside intervention.

I feel I have failed to make my point...and am only making it worse.

Paul, I'm not Ram but I'll respond. My cat killed a squirrel a while ago(well actually I killed it, the cat just crippled it and I didn't want it to lay there and twitch and suffer), it was harmful and unsanitary (cats mouths are full of bacteria) but I'm not sure if the squirrel would consider it insulting or not. Was it wrong or evil to do so? Rats are social creatures, but it is far from uncommon for a male to kill it's or another offspring to bring their mother into heat iirc it's not unknown for some of the higher primates to do the same. Is that evil or wrong? What is the difference between either of those situations and humans?

But to get more to the point, evil is inherently well evil. Wrong is just something that is decided by a group. If there isn't a higher power what makes any of the things you mentioned evil as compared to wrong?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, to receive a manure shovel strike at full force to the face from a fellow human being is harmful, insulting, and unsanitary, for starters. The problem with your thesis is that even in our (imaginary, stay with me) Godless paradise we are more than a "sack of living cells". Within our living body exists our living mind. The mind has the ability to recognize the difference between being hit with a shovel by another human being...and not being hit with a shovel by another human being, and to make a decision on its own as to which one is the better state of being.

If a creature has the ability to recognize a choice for itself it has the natural right to make that choice for itself, within the boundaries of its environmental and social realities.
...
By striking you with my shovel I have deprived you, a fellow living being with a living mind, of your natural right to choose the best state of being for yourself. As social creatures this is likely to have dire consequences for me going forward, as others are going to use this as a barometer of my potential behaviors, and treat me accordingly. (Paul smacks people with shovels, don't lease that house with him...hmmm?)

Heya Paul.

These are the parts of your well-articulated post that captured my attention, bolded.

First, though, your approach still has an objective morality - respect for another person's natural rights - that is a belief in a higher authority. It is not particularly dissimilar from a deity.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, human nature suggests that a culture/society built on such a philosophy is fiction. An impossibility. I will grant you that such dedication is possible in small groups - like the size of a church congregation. But, and I am open to correction on this, I don't believe there has ever been a culture of any size that adhered to that kind of natural rights philosophy.

I believe that is because human beings have base motivations. Think Maselow's Hierarchy. If there's a lack of those lower-level resources, some human will adopt the mantle of authority. Within a relatively short amount of time, it gets ugly for someone.

Religion - and for me personally, the Holy Trinity of God - is a counterforce to those base motivations. In a vacuum, could I do it without God's intervention? Maybe. I am friends with an atheist (he is currently, he was raised Catholic) who, in a similar conversation, told me I wasn't giving myself enough credit - that I am a good person regardless of whether there is a God. That's nice and all, but on a macro level, I don't see any real evidence to support the idea that humans are capable of acting based on higher morality without God's influence.

One other point on the concept of whether we can recognize good/evil without reference to God or religion: there are societies, even religious societies (arguably pagan), that have cruel caste systems. In those systems, there might be no stigma attached to hitting a lowest-level caste member with a manure shovel. It isn't right or wrong, it is morally neutral.

Yet, for those who believe that people are created equal, that is (arguably) evil. That concept of people being equal is (perhaps not uniquely) a Judeo-Christian idea. God created all of us in His image and invested in us part of his divinity, our soul. Can you believe we were created equally without believing in God? Yeah, probably. But, the source of that idea is religious.

In the absence of that belief, human society tends not to treat people equally.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Please re-read my post, I have argued no such thing.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing now, ram, unless you're trying to straw man me.

You asked "by what standard does an atheist call anything 'evil'".

I responded that we are equipped, by evolution, to assess the situation and decide what is "evil" independent of how others behave (within certain boundaries), by comparing the possible outcomes of the various actions within our own mind, and determining which is is more likely to result in a more desirable outcome for each individual. By using this basic standard we are able to set a base (better/worse) and work from there to (best possible/worst possible). The rest is a matter of application, through physical and social necessity.

You seem to be responding that I have argued that the definition of good and evil come from society. I am not. Good and evil come from within...both the source, and the definition, and both can be found without outside intervention.

I feel I have failed to make my point...and am only making it worse.

I might suggest that whatever view of what good and evil, morality and immorality is is heavily influenced by the environment where the people that hold those views are raised and educated. Nearly all of us here were raised in a country where the sense of right and wrong was shaped by Judaeo-Christian influences. Most of us believe marrying and then having sex with very young girls is immoral; we believe killing another person because they insulted you or your family is wrong; nobody I know believes in ritual human sacrifice.

Now, imagine you're an atheist that was raised in an Aztec culture or strict Muslim culture. You don't believe in those dominant religions but all of your life experiences were associated with and immersed in the cultures dominated by those religions. Might you conceive that it is possible that the things you believe to be moral, good, evil, or what have you now be quite different in such a different life? I could. If I were raised in a culture where homosexuals and adulterers were stoned to death on a regular basis, I might believe it's quite ok to stone a person just because they don't fit the cultural norms.

So to Ram's point, societies' views of good and evil are substantially influenced by predominate belief structures...even of those that don't adhere to them. (In my theory, anyway).

 

[deal me in]

Paul, I'm not Ram but I'll respond. My cat killed a squirrel a while ago(well actually I killed it, the cat just crippled it and I didn't want it to lay there and twitch and suffer), it was harmful and unsanitary (cats mouths are full of bacteria) but I'm not sure if the squirrel would consider it insulting or not. Was it wrong or evil to do so? Rats are social creatures, but it is far from uncommon for a male to kill it's or another offspring to bring their mother into heat iirc it's not unknown for some of the higher primates to do the same. Is that evil or wrong? What is the difference between either of those situations and humans?

But to get more to the point, evil is inherently well evil. Wrong is just something that is decided by a group. If there isn't a higher power what makes any of the things you mentioned evil as compared to wrong?

We can't hold animals to the same moral standards as ourselves and we don't get those moral standards from a single book, but rather from the collective human experience. Animals don't even have the capacity to understand morality as a concept. Yes, morals are always changing, even Christian morals. Generally they change for the better over time in civilized cultures, but not always. Not to long ago many Christians supported slavery and cited the Bible to defend this dubious moral position. Somehow, the Bible hasn't changed, but Christian morality has. When a person or group intentionally inflicts unnecessary suffering on others that's evil. That may not be an all encompassing definition, but it works for me.

I think Christians need to defend Biblical morality before trying to cite it as the standard. The entire basis of Christianity is amoral. The belief that one is born with original sin and must accept a savior or face an eternity of suffering is amoral. What is moral about sentencing a person to infinite suffering for a "thought crime"? If we applied Biblical standards to secular life, everyone would start off in jail and only be released when they pledged their love and devotion to the government.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

On the other hand, Christians have a universal moral standard that comes from an unchanging external source. Good and Evil have a definition.

Although you do admit that those two definitions have been a bit of a moving target (whats the opposite of hyperbole?), don't you?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Good and evil come from within...both the source, and the definition, and both can be found without outside intervention.

Good and evil come from the same place that humor, fashion, and art come from. Each resides firmly, though malleable, within the mind of the beholder, and each is formed (and continuously tweaked) through the individual's perspective.

I think that's kind of what GFGT said also.

 

[T.Lex]

Although you do admit that those two definitions have been a bit of a moving target (whats the opposite of hyperbole?), don't you?

I believe the word you're looking for is "understatement."

We can't hold animals to the same moral standards as ourselves and we don't get those moral standards from a single book, but rather from the collective human experience.

I'm interested in this idea that morals come from collective human experience. Personally, as a history hobbyist, I think the totality of human experience nets out as amoral overall. It is only by the influence of a belief in a higher authority that brings morality.

Animals don't even have the capacity to understand morality as a concept.

Curious. Science might disagree.
Do Animas Know Right From Wrong?
Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

Yes, morals are always changing, even Christian morals. Generally they change for the better over time in civilized cultures, but not always. Not to long ago many Christians supported slavery and cited the Bible to defend this dubious moral position. Somehow, the Bible hasn't changed, but Christian morality has.

So, if I understand you correctly, your position is that because Christian morals have evolved/are evolving, the evolution is disconnected from the religion. In other words, because the Christian sense of morality has changed, the morality is inherently human - not Christian? I'm not arguing, just making sure I understand. That could be a provocative position to explore.

(TWSS)

When a person or group intentionally inflicts unnecessary suffering on others that's evil. That may not be an all encompassing definition, but it works for me.

Who decides what is necessary and unnecessary suffering?

I think Christians need to defend Biblical morality before trying to cite it as the standard. The entire basis of Christianity is amoral.

Well, regardless what was said above - that is certainly provocative!

The belief that one is born with original sin and must accept a savior or face an eternity of suffering is amoral. What is moral about sentencing a person to infinite suffering for a "thought crime"? If we applied Biblical standards to secular life, everyone would start off in jail and only be released when they pledged their love and devotion to the government.

Again - just so I'm clear - you're adopting an objective standard of morality (that is somehow non-religious) and applying it to Christianity?

To explore this a bit, I think we can agree that there are certain fundamental realities. Let's call one "evolution." Is survival of the fittest amoral?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Gay Couple Marries In Front of Westboro Baptist Church.

Sort of a reverse take on this thread.