yayyyyyy God

[Birdy]

haha, i do my fair share of pushing back... i don't know if this forum can handle any more!

[SaggyBalls]

I avoid this thread because i think the hopes of a middle ground too far gone.

The title of this thread is wholly sarcastic.

There has been no middle ground from day 1.

I think that this thread is here for entertainment and for perhaps finding people to PM/discuss some of these topics outside of this thread/internet.

I'm sure I'm not the only person that's impressed by how nice you are.

I think that there could easily be a thread called 'The Devil Made me Do it' that's all about the awful side of this yaaaaaay god thread while this yaaaaaaay thread could be the rolleyes of the religious discussion.

But then again, why mess with a good thing.

[Birdy]

Exactly.

I guess i just need to be content with my yearly contribution, and hope that once in a while it makes people think, even if for a split second. And if not, let them think i'm a crazy beeyatch, saying to themselves 'here she goes again'! :laugh:

Indifference is key, even for me. It's why I put so much emphasis on the importance of family and the role of teachers... get 'em while they're young!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

There has been no middle ground from day 1.

While it's fair to say that much of the tenor in the thread has been anti-theistic, I wouldn't say that there has been a total lack of sympathy for religious perspectives, or that there hasn't been nuance. fwiw, I still empathise with anything that recognises the need for meaning that words can't quite reach or pin down.

I also think it's terrifically important to point out where people who claim to have a lock on the truth are just trying to pull one over on the rest of us. I mean, check this out.

[SaggyBalls]

I suppose you have a point, Dr. Mouse, but was the middle ground really ever the reason people would read/post here?

I'm sure I could have expressed that better at the time. WWJD?

[Kanada Kev]

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Just reminded me of this (wait for about the 2 min. mark).

A10PvpbPJZw

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

... we generally aren't that accepting. Just because 'they're' not accepting in the first place, doesn't excuse us either.

What I want to know is how whatever impels these people to do what they do isn't what happens here.

Book Burning 2010

[Esau.]

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a legal battle that pits the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators.

In 2006, members of the Westboro Baptist Church protested 300 feet from a funeral for Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder in Westminster, Maryland, carrying signs reading "God hates you" and "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Among the teachings of the Topeka, Kansas-based fundamentalist church founded by pastor Fred Phelps is the belief that the deaths of U.S. soldiers is God's punishment for "the sin of homosexuality."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/06/washington.free.speech.trial

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Here we go - showtime!

[bradm]

One thing I'll give thanks for this weekend is that I live in a country where there are churches and believers who hold deep faiths, and behave nobly and helpfully, without any of the extremist thoughts or behaviours we see displayed by some of the churches and believers in the USA. (Has any of the stuff reported on in this topic happened in Canada?)

Aloha,

Brad

Edited October 7, 2010 by Guest
Add "some of the" qualifier to "churches and believers".

[Kanada Kev]

http://thechive.com/2010/10/05/some-strange-dude-emailed-us-tonight-and-i-couldnt-help-myself-1-email-exchange/

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

kk - Ok, that was friggin' hilarious ) ! (sobering note: why do people like that have such a hard time with their sense of humour?)

bradm - well, yes and no. Yes, they don't get the same press, which is good in not letting it get critical mass, but we do have our Charles McVetys and Grant Jeffreys and so on. Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor is something I've been both meaning to and avoiding picking up for a while now, because I'm sure it would bum me out, and I spent too many years doing that to want to dive full-on into it again.

But it remains true; the level of most of the Christian Right discourse in Canada is so, so much more civil/polite/cautious than you get down south. It just means you have to be still more subtle and careful whenever you happen to disagree with it (viz., do I complain to my boss about the Operation Christmas Child campaign currently underway where I work, or wait till I have more job security?).

[Thorgnor]

Thought Police, HO!!

The best "reason" that I can come up with to support this thread is this... If god is the basis for morality, and the existence of god is questioned by a large segment of the population, then the existence of morality itself must come into question. It seems that this has been going on, spreading, and growing in momentum for a long while now. If there is no common vision for the basis of moral teaching, there is a dangerous possibility that communication within such a revolution may become less than civil, violent even. And again, it seems to have done so. I would suggest that while the title, and the beginning of the conversation might have been less than friendly towards certain perspectives, this thread has actually offered a pretty good example of people talking out their issues with one another and not necessarily having to come to a conclusion in order to keep affecting changes in social cohesion. This thread has not become violent, that's a success. Think about when morality becomes a question rather than an absolute in some historical examples and compare them to some others. Genocide = surety, conversation = democracy

This response was kind of out of place and meant as part of the earlier conversation... I'm slow

Edited October 7, 2010 by Guest

[Kanada Kev]

[ollie]

One thing I'll give thanks for this weekend is that I live in a country where there are churches and believers who hold deep faiths, and behave nobly and helpfully, without any of the extremist thoughts or behaviours we see displayed by some of the churches and believers in the USA.

Except for the whole priests raping and torturing little kids thing.

[hamilton]

The best "reason" that I can come up with to support this thread is this... If god is the basis for morality, and the existence of god is questioned by a large segment of the population, then the existence of morality itself must come into question. It seems that this has been going on, spreading, and growing in momentum for a long while now. If there is no common vision for the basis of moral teaching, there is a dangerous possibility that communication within such a revolution may become less than civil, violent even. And again, it seems to have done so. I would suggest that while the title, and the beginning of the conversation might have been less than friendly towards certain perspectives, this thread has actually offered a pretty good example of people talking out their issues with one another and not necessarily having to come to a conclusion in order to keep affecting changes in social cohesion. This thread has not become violent, that's a success. Think about when morality becomes a question rather than an absolute in some historical examples and compare them to some others. Genocide = surety, conversation = democracy

Is god the basis for morality?

[bradm]

The best "reason" that I can come up with to support this thread is this... If god is the basis for morality' date=' and the existence of god is questioned by a large segment of the population, then the existence of morality itself must come into question. It seems that this has been going on, spreading, and growing in momentum for a long while now. If there is no common vision for the basis of moral teaching, there is a dangerous possibility that communication within such a revolution may become less than civil, violent even. And again, it seems to have done so. I would suggest that while the title, and the beginning of the conversation might have been less than friendly towards certain perspectives, this thread has actually offered a pretty good example of people talking out their issues with one another and not necessarily having to come to a conclusion in order to keep affecting changes in social cohesion. This thread has not become violent, that's a success. Think about when morality becomes a question rather than an absolute in some historical examples and compare them to some others. Genocide = surety, conversation = democracy[/quote']

Is god the basis for morality?

I think a better question is: Does god have to be the (and only the) basis for morality? Is it possible to come up with a functioning, practical set of morals without resorting to ultimately having everything reduced to "because a deity wants it that way"?

Aloha,

Brad

[Thorgnor]

Exactly Bradm! I totally agree.

I don`t mean to suggest that without God there wouldn`t be morality, but instead that people in the past have not been able to suggest how morality might be universal without a vision of some sort of universal origin for "humanity". While we now have many "scientific" examples of origin theories, we can also see that there are many other competing visions for the origin of humanity. The most prominent of these theories in the West by far has to have been the claim that we are here "by the grace of god" and owe each other some respect based on that alone... all God's children, the Golden Rule.

And I absolutely agree that God does not HAVE to be the only basis for a "functioning" socio-moral code. I would say that we are currently in the midst of an existential crisis regarding this issue. If we do not all believe in the same god, the same Universal Truths, if we do not grasp towards the same utopia, then how are we to build a harmonious society? What is to be the basis of "morality"? Anthropology would like to suggest "bodies" as the place where the "subject" of morals become most important... We must treat each other as equal because we all have "human" bodies, and the effort becomes to extend the image of "humanity" across an even more broad range of "bodies that matter".

So, God was the basis for morality, for some. And for some it still is. And for others, god never had to enter the equation in order for another "person" to be treated with a respect based in morality. The Pope issued a decree a long time ago stating that First Nations people did not have a soul, and that they were therefore not "human". This meant that without being immoral a Christian could treat Aboriginal people like animals. God didn't tell them to act that way, at least not in a way that we can prove scientifically, but god was used as the basis for a moral/belief system that meant perfect manners had to be displayed at the dinner table around Christian ladies so as not to offend God, while brutality was acceptable elsewhere. I'm sure Jared Diamond covered this. The word morality came about during religious discourse which attempted to legitimize powers such as sovereignty, "moral acts" come about for a lot of better reasons than because God says so.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

The word morality came about during religious discourse which attempted to legitimize powers such as sovereignty, "moral acts" come about for a lot of better reasons than because God says so.

And fwiw, the word "religion" didn't get used as a noun until early modernity. Before that, it was just people acting according to a certain way of doing things. Now we've got that noun, and we can talk about it,and more clearly (or badly) against it - and this even though there's still no adequate definition of religion in the field (maybe this will always be the problem).

It's funny, though, how establishing those kinds of concepts through language gives us an edge on how things work. There's a great interview with Paul Ekman

that touches on this - he found talking with the Dalai Lama that there's no word in Tibetan for "emotion"; it's just a bunch of stuff that happens to you. When you get the concept, you gain control over it, so that you're not so subject to it. For a Buddhist like the DL, this is a good thing.

I think the same thing happens with morality - until we peel away all the layers and can categorise what goes on there, we're subject to whatever happens to be in play. Modernity is all about getting control over all that (which has it's downside - cf. Foucault). Weird thing with religious conservatism is that too often there's not the same kind of reflexive understanding; there are just non-negotiables which end up being poorly understood.

[Esau.]

I think a better question is: Does god have to be the (and only the) basis for morality? Is it possible to come up with a functioning, practical set of morals without resorting to ultimately having everything reduced to "because a deity wants it that way"?

Aloha,

Brad

Simple answer: No, god doesn't have to be the basis for morality. In my opinion anyway.

My morals really have nothing to do with any religious teaching, belief or otherwise. Although, a lot of them are no doubt the same as the religious ones, but I think of it more as a human moral code (eg: don't kill, steal, and try to be kind etc).

And I don't believe in karma. My days at the cancer clinic around all those children showed me it doesn't exist.

[phorbesie]

karma seems a better/more palatable explanation for suffering, to me, than god. (but i get that you don't believe in god either).

[Esau.]

It's not that I believe or don't believe in god or a "higher power" - that's a discussion I've never, and probably won't get into here, or anywhere really. It's really nobody's business but my own, just as it's none of my business what someone does or doesn't believe in. That's why I have such a problem with people who insist on pressuring or 'strong handing' their beliefs upon others. Be it religious, environmental or medical etc.

On the other hand I feel that anything that gives someone hope or strength must be a good thing, on a person by person level though. What's good for me might not be good for you etc. If faith in god gives a person hope and strength, I say go with it. If it's something else, well that's cool too.

I do believe however that one doesn't require any belief/faith in religion to have a good moral code and good judgment of right or wrong - We all know it's wrong to steal from someone, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof.

As for karma, I guess there are numerous ways to look at it, or believe in it, but from my uneducated understanding of it I suppose I don't believe it to exist in the "do bad things, bad things happen in return" vein. There's just too much going on in the world that contradicts that for my liking.

[timouse]

not to reduce this to a base level, but i have a relevant quote, i heard it attributed to george carlin.

"religious belief is like a penis. what you do with your own penis is fine, but don't wave it in my face. and for fucks's sakes keep it away from children!"

[phorbesie]

i just didn't understand your view on karma, but you cleared that up by saying it's the western view (ie. instant karma).

karma is so complex as a teaching, and includes previous lives, so what i meant was that it's not a simple cause and effect.