by highdose 39 Replies latest jw friends
An arguement i've encountered recently is: God tells us right from wrong. If you don't have a reason to do right instead of wrong then no one will have any morals.
I disagree with this entirely of course. What kind of morality is it when you are only doing what is right out of fear of being punished for doing what is wrong?
Of course I disagree as well . . . what thinking person wouldn't?
Having come to see the transcendent "Gods" of the religions of this world, as entirely originating with mankind anyway . . . then all "God-given" morality and ethics are simply man-made by default.
Being able to "project" ourselves into the place of another (a uniquely human characteristic), is the sole requirement for seeing the all-encompassing morality of "Do unto others . . . " All that's required, is to embrace the principle whole-heartedly for it to become an ever present faculty of conscience.
There is entirely no need for a supreme authority or "God-given" set of "rules" in order for that to be accomplished. In fact, it is the introduction of such, that often allows for the conscience to be subverted.
There's a huge difference between religion and spirituality. Almost every spiritual teaching says that the only place to find God is within.... it's your Intuition. The Western religions pretty much stand alone in their stupidity. There's no God up in the sky telling us right from wrong, and Biblegod is certainly no role model, as he doesn't know right from wrong himself.
Here's a little secret: Worshiping an imaginary God, other than following the God within, is the true meaning of Idolatry. If a person does bad things, they're worshiping their egos.
"Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it." ~Romans 2:14
No, but it sometimes helps. How many times do you do something you wouldn't otherwise because, "It's the Christian thing to do." ?
No, as things are right now and with morals "engrained" in most societies, we no longer need religion to have morals.
It may be the religion has "served its purpose", the purpose being the introduction and foundation of morals, and that NOW it is no longer needed since it seems to be actually, at times, doing mor ehamr than good because of how it has become "contaminated".
I don't agree though because I find that religion is something that will always be with us, regardless of the "name" it will take ( Ideology, philosophy, whatever) and that is because humans tend to want a set of "rules and beliefs" to follow and like tohave them "organized".
It has been "engrained" in most the difference between right and wrong or fair and unfair or should and ought, etc, etc BUT it still seems that we need soemthing concrete to enforce this, to "put it on paper", be it religion, law, whatever.
In the beginning, doing what is right out of fear "sort" of worked ( the bibel shows us that it didn't more than it did), but even then that wasn't how it was suppose to be, as we find the bible progressing and finally revealed in Christ, we are to do "good for goodness sake", not for recompense OR out of fear of punsihment, but simply because it is the "right thing to do".
The two most popular religious books in the history of the world are The Bible and the The Koran.
I would suggest that people elevate their morals to a level above both of those religious books.
PSacramento has morals that are superior to the Bible, IMHO. Why? He reads the book, then dismisses what HE determines is repugnant. His own internal set of values filters out the morally bankrupt commands in the Bible.
no
PP: No, but it sometimes helps. How many times do you do something you wouldn't otherwise because, "It's the Christian thing to do." ?
never.
PSacramento has morals that are superior to the Bible, IMHO. Why? He reads the book, then dismisses what HE determines is repugnant. His own internal set of values filters out the morally bankrupt commands in the Bible.
Well, as much as I appreciate the compliment my friend, it isn't as clear cut as that :)
Yes, I use my internal moral filter as a guide, but not to dismiss but to try to understand what is written.
As we all should.
I try to reconcile what is written in the bible with what I know of the world and what I know of God, even if all I know of God IS from the bible ( it isn't but lets say it is).
If I come to a passage that confronts me with a difficulty, something that goes against how God is revealed FINALLY in the bible ( using only the bible as refernce for now), then I MUST, like any believer, reconcile what was written in the past and what was revealed later on.
It takes a lot of more hard work then JUST relying on my internal morals BUT those morals ( guided by Love) are motivating factor for the desrie TO understanding what was meant.
I have found that one CANNOT seperate what was written from WHO wrote it and what times it was written in and what was the typical way od writing.
I have found that God is a most loving and patient and tolerant Father that at times gives commands because they have to be given, not because they are the best ones to give and he does this NOT because of HIM, but because it is the only way WE ( the people the commands are given to at the time) can understand.
I have also found that, just like NOW, far too many people "speak for God" with their OWN aggendas, even if they may not realize it at the time.
IMHO, PSacramento didn't have to read the New Testament to 'know' that it's wrong to stone homosexuals or to stone disobedient children. If he's a good Christian, it's because of his morals, not the other way around.
[ducks and runs for cover]
