The problem with “the Bible” as a moral guide is that there are at least 4 “Bibles”. I am not talking about versions here. In the pre-
excilic OT, There are a LOT of rules, and I expect that you follow very few of them, Jenkins. Also, God accepts other Gods, and even shows them as powerful in their own land w/ their own people. There is no hell, and no Satan… Post-exile OT, there is only one God, the rest are false. There is a Satan, and a hell, but not very well defined.
Then we have the NT. In the early books, we have the Teachings of Jesus, very liberal, very forgiving, very few rules, and you are excepted from the old rules, mostly( still, no eating of blood, or meat from strangled beasts). Up to this time, “fornication” seems to refer to sex w/ the harlots of pagan temples, not sex in general. In the later NT books, mostly by Paul & his converts, we again have lots of rules. Sex is bad, even between married couples. Hell is a place of hoorible tortures & torments, and if you are NOT a Christian, you go there, no matter how blameless you have been.
So which is YOUR Bible, Jenkins? It can’t be all 4, as they seriously contradict. Personally, I like the simple Teachings of Jesus. Non-condemning, forgiving, merciful.
Even if you are NOT a Christian, they make good reading & good sense.
I’m not sure that seeking your eternal reward is a really good reason to believe. I should hope that your devotion to Christianity is based on a higher calling than simply wanting to get into a good place when you’ve died.
Anyway, a quote that I thought of while reading your post
“Imperious Caesar, dead and turn’d to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!”
-Hamlet, V, ii.
Ok, I’m not an atheist, nor to a subscribe to an organized religion.
I think the best response that answered th OP is “compassion”. When I was six, to impress a kid I stole marble’s from this other kid’s desk. Then when the boy learned that his marbles were gone he started crying. I felt sick (and still feel sick about it). I could feel his pain and understood what he is going through. Since then I have never intentionally hurt another person, especially just to impress someone else. I had not been to church prior to that point and didn’t need to learn that lesson in church.
Then when I was about 11 or 12 my parents started to go to church again. It didn’t add anything new to what I already knew to be unethical. Instead it just seemed to make the whole process of being a good person more complicated. It wasn’t good enough just to do no harm and to be charitable. You also had to this, this, and this. Then when I looked at other religions it only seemed to start to confuse me more. They all had the same core values, but the technicalities were all vastly different and each was absolutely vital to getting into an afterlife of some sorts.
Also, I majored in history in college and I look at countries that were not judeo-christian and still managed to have laws based on those same core of ethics. Then I would read about individuals who would intentionally abuse the church to gain power in Europe.
Hmmm, this has turned into a ramble. What I’m basically trying to say is that an individual can learn ethics on his own if he possesses compassion. Belonging to an organized religion does not guarantee compassion.
Although, I have noticed that organized religion does effectively use peer pressure to get individuals, who normally would be selfish, to be more involved in charities and such.
I believe that everyone is their own ultimate authority. Even Christians who claim that God is their ultimate authority are incorrect; they have decided whether or not Christianity is true, and in doing so have, at least implicitly, declared themselves to be the ultimate authority.
Given your definition of “relative”, no. Or yes. I mean, killing isn’t wrong under some circumstances (self-defense, etc.) But that doesn’t mean that the conditions for when killing is justified change from time to time.
No, I don’t believe that I have all the answers inside of me. But I don’t think you have all the answers inside of you, or that the Pope does, or that Paul did or that Jesus did. I don’t see why I should take anything anyone else says about God as being more true than what I believe.
So is it wrong for me to look forward to a reward? No, because it’s promised to me if I do good stuff.
Giving a quarter to the bum on the street is REWARDING. Feeling good about doing something good is a reward. Everything good that people do has a selfish motive. You can not perform a good deed without feeling good about it. Feeling good is a natural high, endorphins race through our blood stream, we are HAPPY! The Human Race likes to be HAPPY! I’m looking forward to a whole new realm of happiness that will be offered to me when I die. And if any of you say you don’t get some kind of a natural high…and you enjoy it, even if it’s a minute one, then you are LYING. Nobody does good deeds for the pure sake of doing good deeds. EVERYBODY is like a happiness junkie looking for that next quick fix. Selfish reasons.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
Again, I’m going to have to take issue with the idea that every good deed is motivated by selfishness. Now that would be a world that I don’t want to live in.
Likewise if you are saying, in a roundabout fashion, that good deeds are their own reward, I will happily agree with you and pose a simple question.
Why do you need more reward than seeing the good that you can do, and the happiness you can make others feel?
Before I start I would like to state that Behavoiral evolution works on the idea that the behavoir that benifits the greater whole of society is what prevails(most of the time, there are many exceptions due to well… greed.)
This is my own little theory…
There is a 99.99999999999% chance that society formed because it was benifical to those whom were in it. Since the biological purpose of life is to propogate the species the groups were usually of the same species. I extrapolate this from the move from Singular free floating free moving bacteria to colonies such as volvox and onto those more complex societies(i.e ours). In order for societies to exist there must be a sort of conformity in goals. Basically you must follow society. Don’t harm it, but try and do good for it. Basically I say the most basic of morals come from built in “inherent trent toward goodness” which was, and still is a Benificial trait.
For individuals I believe that a kind of progression of levels. The first level being simple reward/punishment. You do something good, your parents reward you, something bad they punish you. Eventually you begin to do the things that were taught to you without thinking about any reward. But this begs the question from where did this Moral Idea come from? My answer would be from build in evolutionary instincts AND our Inteligence(Idea that just occurs to them, and if followed regardless of rewards/punishment because of that built in evolutionary goodness toward the greater whole). This accounts for why some people are never tought morals, but have them anyway.
Hum… not a very clear statement now that I read it, but I wanna goto sleep. Please ask whatever questions you need if you don’t understand.
~Bored2001
If money is the root of all evil and time is money then aren’t we be morally bounded to kill time?
The vast majority of atheists do not feel the need to commit suicide immediately, probably because we do find a point in living. It’s possible to find your own meaning in life. At the very least, we don’t see a point in ending our lives early.
If this is the only chance at life I have, why shouldn’t I make the most of it? On the other hand, if I believed a fantastic and painless afterlife was awaiting me, I might be in a rush to get this life over with right now. As a theist, how do you find the motivation to wake up in the morning? Why don’t you wish to die this instant?
You could also say that everything bad that people do has a selfish motive. Everything, in fact, that people do is motivated by selfishness. If everything we do is selfish, then the quality of selfishness ceases to have meaning.
To answer the OP, I agree with others that my morality is based on compassion. As a human being, I rely on society for my survival. I can use one of two tactics: either exploit everyone as much as possible to achieve personal gain, or contribute to society in a way that benefits others as well as myself. The problem with the first tactic is that only a relatively few people can use it before society breaks down, and it’s riskier to the persons who uses it. The second tactic comes naturally to most of us in the form of compassion for our fellow humans.
Depending on the circumstances of the times, greed or compassion may be the better survival mechanism. For example, if I lived in a time of severe food shortage, I might be inspired to steal food to feed myself and my starving children. Living in a society with a food surplus, I’m much more likely to give food away to those less fortunate. Humans are flexible; we have the capacity to be greedy OR generous, but most of us choose the latter.
I’m afraid it’s not that simple. For all we know, you could be a Mormon, if you just say “pick up the Bible.” Christians of all stripes claim to follow the Bible, and they all have different interpretations.
I’m not sure what you mean by “relative morality.” By your definition, isn’t the morality of the Bible relative? I imagine that you believe that rape and genocide wrong, but at points in the Bible they are presented as being good. Doesn’t that mean that Biblical morality is, by your definition, relative? Am I misreading you here?
Incidentally, CNN had a report about teaching kids right from wrong. While I didn’t see the actual broadcast, I got a web blurb about it from their website. Thought I’d quote a few things:
"Experts say the first wobbly steps toward understanding right from wrong come early in life.
‘They can learn about right and wrong the minute they get caught in the cookie jar,’ says family psychiatrist John Lochridge.
By the second year of life, children begin to learn empathy and understand that others have feelings, according to Lochridge.
As children move from innocence to reasoning, a mixture of nature and nurture helps them to develop consciences."
This goes along quite well with some of the threads I pointed to, above, in which nonbelievers were explaining that they don’t need a book to tell them what is good and what is not – but rather that empathy plays a large role.
Pepperlandgirl says, " . . . if I didn’t have a soul that would live on…then I would kill myself right now. Because, hey, what would be the point?"
—There IS no “point.” Why does everyone think there has to be a “point?” Like the old soldier’s song goes, “We’re here because we’re here because we’re here because we’re here . . .”
The only “point” is to live as good and happy a life as you can while you’re here, because this is all you get. Following the Golden Rule is the thing to do, because it makes life smoother for yourself and for everyone else. I’m trying to have as good a time and do as much as I can, because if I get hit by a truck (or if a porn star falls out of a window on me, as does happen in NY sometimes), then it’s worm chow for Baby. Yeah, that’s tough, but that’s life.
Any person can have a very satisfying life (whether or not one believes in God). It only takes two guidelines:
Treat others (people, property, Earth) with respect and compassion
Treat yourself with respect
I believe life has more value because it is brief. This is all you get, so cherish it.
I think a person who believes in life ever-after may not as deeply enjoy the life they have now because they believe it is only temporary.
I (increasingly as I get older) am frustrated with the Christian viewpoint that they have an exclusive contract on morality.
Even though I am an athiest, I am a very moral society member and active in volunteer opportunities. My college age children are very moral and considerate young adults. Interestingly, the kids that they had problems with growing up (stealing their stuff, vandalizing property, bigots, etc) were generally Church-Going-Kids.
Christ-based religions need to clean up their own houses before they start throwing stones at other’s beliefs. Here in Dallas, we have a large quantity of multi-million dollar churchs (One recent Baptist Church cost $50 million to build). These extravagent buildings go against the very tenets of Christianity, but instead of being an embarrassment, they draw members by the thousands.
I am confused about how anyone finds comfort in the Bible or the God described in the Bible after they have read it. I found it to be a very violent book, and not one that inspired comfort.
I do not gamble … based on my personal morals.
The goverment Federal / state, condones / promotes such activities. I would not want a law passed prohibting all forms of gambling (I would like the state to do away with the lottery based on social factors). How should I be judge for that viewpoint.
