free12thinker

I find that no matter how well thought out your explanation is regarding our needs for a higher power, those who believe in the higher power are so consummated by the "awesomeness" of this higher power (God), that anyone who doubts that Gods existence, is just talking in tongues. I have had 100+ debates on this subject alone, and my explanation has always been, murder is murder, almost subconsciously. No one questions its validity as a harmful and thereby immoral act. But homosexuality, casual sex, gambling and the like are all hotly debated. So what's the difference between the two? Murder negatively impacts someone else, gambling does not. And for those who claim that gambling leads to financial woes and family problems, I simply reply that such a response is only true when the gambler is an addict, and we cannot assume they are. If we did, we would have to assume that all drivers were aggressive drivers. Bottom Line: The only acts which are immoral are those which negatively, impact others, beliefs aside. It's a single sentence that can answer our lack of need for a higher power, because, after all is said and done, humanity is all that matters.

babelfish

free12thinker:

I think this is exactly the type of thinking that fundamentalist abhor! Acts that don't have any readily apparent impact upon society, like sex between two consenting adults, for example, be they married or not, be they the same sex or not.

Also, you'd be hard-pressed to show how casual drug use negatively impacts society. After all, even Jesus drank wine. I consider alcohol to be a drug, yet it's socially condoned by most people.

However, I have noticed that much of what is considered "sinful" by fundamentalists seems to concern sexual matters, homophobia being one of their biggest rallying points (another one is abortion).

I agree, the need for a higher authority centers around these sorts of "sins."

free12thinker

I couldn't agree with you more, and it's really sad that fundamentalists cannot think for themselves when coming up with the immoralities of these "victimless" sins. Marijuanna is a big one. Marijuanna, simply by virtue of being labeled a drug "sounds" bad to any fundamentalist, and therefore it must be bad. But why? Who has it harmed? I have never smoked it, nor do I plan on ever trying. But, that does not mean I must think it's bad. Absolutely not. In order to deem it wrong, I would have to come up with a valid reason, and I cannot. Science has shown it to be safer, in fact, than alcohol and cigarettes. Victimless sins are what they are; without victims. That said, they should not be considered sins.

Jamie_L

My response is that it does not exist, and we are surviving.

Christians may THINK they have an objective morality, but they don't. No two Christian sects agree on every moral detail in the bible. Each Christian puts more weight on some bible passages, less on others, and interprets things according to their own personal moral sense. So, really, Christian morality is subjective in its own way.

Examples: eye for an eye, or turn the other cheek? Stone your daughter to death if she's not a virgin on her wedding day? Seek to correct "immoral" laws or render unto Caesar what is Caesar's? OT? NT? Etc., etc.

Can any of these baptists show you a clear, consise document detailing all of their morality that isn't subject to interpretation? If they say the bible, they're kidding themselves.

So, if we've never had an objective morality, and the human race is getting on okay, then I guess we don't need one.

Jamie

babelfish

The one young man (at least I believe he's young, based on his writing style) who is most adament about moral absolutes on the Baptist Board, has yet to admit that he uses the Bible as his moral guide-book. He seems to think that "THE moral absolutes" somehow transcend the Bible.

Right now I'm trying to get him to tell me how he came by his moral code.

abe smith

Whether we "need a moral absolute/or a moral authority" or not, WE DO NOT HAVE ONE. Abe

babelfish

abe, that's exactly what I think.

gooneygoogoo

A society with inferior moral standards should fare worse than a society with superior moral standards. So the society with the most sensible moral standards will, over time, become more advanced than a society with inappropriate moral standards.
Think of Dubya Bush banning study on stem cells because of his religious beliefs. A result of this may be that a cure for cancer that would have been discovered due to this research is never found... at least in American society. But what if there was another country that allowed this research. THEY discover the cure for cancer. Then imagine that this society is the enemy of the US and don't share this cure with our country. The enemy society becomes stronger, because their set of morals was more appropriate. In this case, the moral values of the US were incorrect.
Then extrapolate these moral dilemmas out in thousands of other ways. For example, in Saudi they cut of someone's hand if he is caught stealing. Is this good moral behavior? Depends on the net result to society. If (A) the individual realizes how wrong he was, never steals again, and this example teaches others not to do this behavior, then it was moral. But if (B) the individual does or doesn't change his behavior, and becomes much less productive because of the missing hand, then society loses out, and the morals of the society were wrong.

Bill Snedden

My own personal take on the subject of this thread:

Yes, we do need an ultimate moral authority; a standard of value by which we determine how we shall live.

IMO, however, the question should be, "should our ultimate moral authority be external or internal; should it come from within ourselves or from someone or something else?"

Again, IMO, our "ultimate moral authority" must come from within ourselves; it must be an intrinsic part of who and what we are as human beings.

In other words, I am my own "ultimate moral authority", and my life constitutes my standard of value. That which is conducive to human life is "good" and that which is inimical to it is "evil."

I think that this is true for all rational beings. We must each be our own "ultimate moral authority", taking responsibility for our own actions and living by a code of ethics chosen to promote and enhance our lives as rational beings.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Nu

Snedden,

I am having a strong moral conviction that tells me to kill you as slowly and painfully as possible.

Can I please have your address and phone number so I can set up an appointment and I can fufill my responsiblity as being "my own 'ultimate moral authority'".

If you refuse than please tell me why your "ultimate moral authority" takes precedence over mine. Why are some ultimate moral authorities more ultimate than others? (borrowed some words from George Orwell's Animal Farm)

Disclaimer: I am not serious about the death threat. I am trying to make my point.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nu ]</p>