emur

The problem is, the individuals involved don't see it as a preference. They believe that their stance on an issue is what God wants. In all of the squabbles and splits that I have seen, at least one side has held that their position is God's position. This makes compromise impossible.

Humility is practically non-existant when someone claims to hear from God on a subject, or insists that whatever they do or whatever position they hold is God's will. They have so intertwined God into their views on doctrine and practice that humility becomes a threat to them. So out goes humility...

I believe if whoever or whatever God is speaks, that communication takes the form of some sort of personal impression on the mind/emotion of an individual. This of course is an entirely subjective experience. The individual's claim of "hearing" God cannot be proven or substantiated. It's his claim and his alone.

As such, we cannot know whether God speaks, and we cannot know whether others hear. The only thing we can know is that some people claim to hear from God.

These claims are often contradictory, and there is no way to determine in such a case which claim is from God and which one is not, if in fact either are.

The contradictory nature of claims leads me to only several possibilites:

1. There is no God and claims are nothing more than psychological experiences born out of the circumstances of the moment.

2. There is a God, but more of a deist version. God is somewhere, but isn't involved with us here.
Claims are as 1 above.

3. There is a God, and God is an existence in another realm beyond our three dimensional space accessible to our five senses. This God can be encountered (worship, prayer, silence, serving others, etc) but this encounter isn't what I would call direct communication. Instead it is an experience of the divine. Such encounters are only for the individual, and are only valid for the individual. God doesn't tell me to tell you...

The God in view 3 isn't omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Neither is this God about rules, hell, fear, and judgement. Those are all man-made contructs. This God just is.

When it comes to the God pictured in a literal reading of the bible, I am a strong atheist. Such a God is incoherent and a moral monster.

I lean toward 3 above. This is the only theistic belief that makes any sense to me based on my experiences of life. But I realize that it too is not without problems, thus my agnosticism.

Whether hearing from God can be handled in a destructive or productive manner is up to the person claiming to hear from God. I'm not optimistic about it being productive though, at least as a norm. Liberals tend to be silent on the subject, and evangelicals/fundamentalists contribute to the problem with their belief system.

Mel

brighid

Epitome,

It is appropriate to the discussion under the theory I have posited from your assertation that religion is a good foundation for morality, specifically that it would be logical to conclude that the more religious a community is the more "moral" it should be, AND that your own system of morality (not being of the fundamentalist kind) has been strongly influenced by secular reasoning/morality. It is very important that you answer the questions as asked for the purpose of that comparison.

I can see how you could come to this conclusion. How about devoutly fundamentalist. I am looking to compare literal interpretations of law/morality with the strict practice of application and compare that to moderate, liberal and secular points of view.

I also realize your personal theory is not as I have posited, but it is one that can be logically garnered from the study and the idea that religion is a good basis for morality. I think some religious ideas have moral underpinnings and are moral themselves, but I deny that the "divine authority" of those ideals are the basis for even the religious morality you speak of.

It is also my contention that people are basically good and that they will find a moral system that is in tune with their "goodness", not that religion makes them better through divine intervention but they make themselves "better" through conscious choice and action.
Any of the things described as being "good" in the religious communities sited can be duplicated in non-religious communities (and in fact are). It is my conclusion that religion (regardless of the faith or denomination) is only one vehicle that can be chosen to facilitate moral behavior and that it is a) not the best because it does not teach personal responsibility b) it bribes behavior with promises of "heaven" and threats of hell c) can more often than not be used as a tool for righteously justified moral wrongs or evils and d) secular reasoning and influence has provided us with the "moderate" and "liberal" denominations and their altered views of morality and therefore no longer hold the divine authority claimed in their watered down and modern evolutionary interpretations and applications. Therefore, societies (communities) with largely secular (not simply atheistic) influences are in fact the better societies in which to live.

I would like to restrict the discussion to the Abrahamic Three: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

So, let us begin

Brighid

emur

I agree with this brighid. I would like to add that religious morality is problematic because it makes human well-being secondary to religious doctrines and practices.

Mel

Primal

The news to me...links? And even if true I'd rather have more "property crime" then violent crime. Japan is actually lower in crime rates then the US. Have you even met anyone from Japan?

Also if China has more crime how is it the US has a higher prison population with a lower overall population?

Stats on crime rates totally discrediting your claims: <a href="http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/trc000927.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/WCTS/trc000927.pdf</a>

Compared to third world countries I guess ours is better...your point? At college level we do well, but at grade school we do poorly. Cuba has a much better educational system then the US and has less rescources.

CBSnews.com:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/26/world/main530872.shtml</a>

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Primal:

We're discussing the UN and educational systems in Misc Discussions. before you speak whereof you do not know, why not drop in on that debate? I don't like repeating myself.

Also, the reason the US has more criminals in jail than the Chinese is because the US police are more effective at catching criminals . As I said, in Chinese culture the police are far more likely to be corrupt than in the US. How do you think gangs operate openly there?

I am quite aware Japan has lower crime rates than the US: I SAID SO IN MY POST. But crime is cultural and complex, all East Asian states have far more organized crime than the US, and it does not show up clearly in crime stats. So the issue of crime in Japan is a complex one that is not easily resolved by one-liners.

Vorkosigan

Primal

Nothing like spurrious "conspiracy theories" and superfluous speculation about catching criminals to try and explain away the evidence. Also never mind that Korea likewise has more prisoners then China; they must be that much better at catching criminals then the Chinese. And that much less corrupt.

And that China has about 100 criminals per 100,000 people; whereas the US has 5,000. I guess we must be at least 50 times better at catching criminals and 50 times less corrupt!

So religion does not necessarily determine how moral a given group of people are in a given society? Thx.

Epitome

Mel: 3. There is a God, and God is an existence in another realm beyond our three dimensional space accessible to our five senses. This God can be encountered (worship, prayer, silence, serving others, etc) but this encounter isn't what I would call direct communication. Instead it is an experience of the divine. Such encounters are only for the individual, and are only valid for the individual. God doesn't tell me to tell you...

Are you open to more options?

4. God does communicate directly, but his communication is not always clear to the individual. There are many reasons for this including but not limited to: God's methods of communication differ from what we are used to, people tend to hear what they want to hear- even when talking to each other,

If God is superior to us then it is not strange that we, like children, must learn to communicate with him. First by listening and then confirming what we have heard with others who are listening. I agree that experiences can be for the individual alone, but it is not always so. Two or more people hearing the same thing at the same time can help to confirm what the message is and for whom. But it must be done with patience and humility…

Mel:Whether hearing from God can be handled in a destructive or productive manner is up to the person claiming to hear from God. I'm not optimistic about it being productive though, at least as a norm. Liberals tend to be silent on the subject, and evangelicals/fundamentalists contribute to the problem with their belief system.

I agree completely. A lot of bad has come from people who are unwilling to admit they maybe heard wrong... But that doesn't mean that God doesn't speak... only that we should try to listen better and be more careful.

Epitome

Brighid: It is appropriate to the discussion under the theory I have posited from your assertation religion is a good foundation for morality, specifically that it would be logical to conclude that the more religious a community is the more "moral" it should be

I continue to disagree with your definition of "more religious". I cannot equate it to strict fundamentalism and this may be a sticking point to continuing the discussion.

Strict fundamentalism is a form of practicing morality… and it is not just practiced by the religious… There are strict fundamental environmentalists, animal rights activists, anti-globalization activists, atheists and most probably secular humanists. (not as many as the religious types.) My understanding (which may not be the only one or the correct one, just clarifying for communication purposes) is that anyone taking the rules and regulations they see as 'correct' and then following the rules to the extreme. In the most severe cases, taking it into their own hands to try to force others to follow them as well… either through coercion, guilt, brow beating and in the worst cases violence.

So to say that Religious Fundamentalist are the most religious doesn't make any more sense to me than saying that the environmentalist who is chaining himself to a tree is the bigger environmentalist. It's only one way of practicing what you believe, and not always the most effective… most often counter productive to the cause.

Brighid: AND that your own system of morality (not being of the fundamentalist kind) has been strongly influenced by secular reasoning/morality. It is very important that you answer the questions as asked for the purpose of that comparison.

Can explain how you reached this conclusion and maybe what you think my belief system is? As I see things, my belief system is based on that laid out by Jesus in the gospels and by the Apostles letters… NOT secularism and liberalism.

Brighid: . I am looking to compare literal interpretations of law/morality with the strict practice of application and compare that to moderate, liberal and secular points of view.

I guess I just don't see how you need me to answer your questions for you. I suspect if you are just wanting to point a finger at strict fundamentalism as not being ideal or lending itself to immorality more so than other religious practices, in the end I would agree with you anyway! If you have had the time to read over my discussion with Mel, I have agreed that that strict fundamentalism is not the ideal for a moral system.

The position I put forth was that the studies concluded that religious communities and people involved in religious activities in general produced moral people.

I hope you don't think I'm just avoiding the issues you want to address... I'm sincerely trying to clarify our posistions before be begin talking past each other.

Brighid: It is also my contention that people are basically good and that they will find a moral system that is in tune with their "goodness", not that religion makes them better through divine intervention but they make themselves "better" through conscious choice and action.

I will address this further because I find it fascinating, I simply don't have time at the moment.

Epitome

emur

I'm sure you realize that such a God is not omnipotent. An omnipotent, perfect God would not be such a poor communicator. This part is not a problem for me because I don't believe God is omnipotent.

I don't agree with option 4 because there is no way to know who is hearing God's communication correctly. It boils down to the individual's choice as to who is "hearing" God properly. One says the fundamentalist baptist is hearing him correctly. Another says NO!, the pentacostal is. Another says HA!, you are both wrong, it's the presbyterian that has it right, and on and on it goes.

This puts God in a rather interesting position. It's like God saying "These inferior humans! I communicate and communicate, but they just cannot hear me properly. What am I going to do with them?"

Confirming with others what we think we are hearing from God is problematic. They might not be right. Sheer numbers in agreement mean nothing as far as being correct is concerned.

Consider the 33,000 Christian denominations or the other world religions. They each have numbers, but they all cannot be hearing God correctly. How do we know who's right, if any are right?

Two or more people in agreement with a supposed message from God simply means their interpretation of the message gets imposed or stated to another person as the correct message. The other person's interpretation is thus considered incorrect, and he/she has to submit to the former's message. Yet the former message may be wrong, so who's to say which message has been understood correctly. There is a lot of room for abuse with this.

Soo...we are back to not knowing whether God communicates directly, and if he does, who is getting the message right.

Mel

Epitome

Brighid: It is also my contention that people are basically good and that they will find a moral system that is in tune with their "goodness", not that religion makes them better through divine intervention but they make themselves "better" through conscious choice and action.

I'm of the perspective that while children are born innocent, for survival purposes they are selfish and self-centered. Those qualities while acceptable in children, must be shed in maturity or will lead to immorality. Through instruction or trial and error they can discover that considering long term needs and desires and the needs and desires of others benefits both self and society- what we call moral. And suffering through consequences both put on by instructors and through circumstances can enlighten the individual that thinking only of ones own immediate desires and needs leads to destruction of self and society.

But learning what is moral is no guarantee someone will CHOOSE to be moral.

Brighid: It is my conclusion that religion (regardless of the faith or denomination) is only one vehicle that can be chosen to facilitate moral behavior and that it is a) not the best because it does not teach personal responsibility

In fact many religions do teach personal responsibility.

b) it bribes behavior with promises of "heaven" and threats of hell

While this may be present in a few religion, it is not always seen as the primary focus of said religion. Often times it is merely a consequence of actions chosen, but not the "REASON" for the choice.

c) can more often than not be used as a tool for righteously justified moral wrongs or evils

As can other things such as I described above… but noted that religion is a tool used often- (maybe because more people are religious?) But it is often important to realize that many times when religion is looked to be at fault, where there is a theocracy or where religion and nation are the same, it is also nationalism that has much influence as well.

d) secular reasoning and influence has provided us with the "moderate" and "liberal" denominations and their altered views of morality and therefore no longer hold the divine authority claimed in their watered down and modern evolutionary interpretations and applications.

Can you provide some examples. I'm not sure what you're talking about here…

Therefore, societies (communities) with largely secular (not simply atheistic) influences are in fact the better societies in which to live.

Such as?

Since you have not yet provided examples of just how you believe secularism is influencing religions for the better, I don't know how you think this is coming about.

Coincidental to this on going discussion, my husband spoke with a woman from China yesterday. She noted to him how different it was living among people with a belief system that included God. She said that Buddhism was mostly just part of the culture and that very few people believed in it anymore. She is a non-believer/agnostic and commented that she suspected that having a void of belief in anything but the natural was quite possibly the reason her countrymen were becoming overly materialistic.

We can't make much of a thesis based on one woman's observances, but it does bring up some interesting questions….

I'd like to ask you how you would, or if you would, spread the word of morality for moralities sake to such people? Or if you would concede that materialism is a valid value system for a secular society to foster morality?