[mike777]

"Are morals, as prescribed by religious doctrine, immutable?"


My understanding, is yes and yes and yes.
If we define Religious doctrine as the word of God.

Of course much of religious doctrine in not the word of God so therefore mutable, think relevation here.

Here is a typical but very rare in live example.

The Pope, "speaking from the chair" on doctrine is the same as from the mouth of God.

In real life the Popes almost never do this.
Doctrine is a complex word here.

[mike777]

Hopefully without sounding too preachy, religion for many of us is a 2 sided coin.
Justness and Forgiveness (undeserved)

[Impact]

Since we're into iconoclasm, let's go further.

Historically marriage was fostered by various states/religions/ruling groups because of the need to take care of children (the weak) - particularly in eras of high rates of child mortality and mothers who died in childbirth.

Like much of ritual religion, and moral codes - the basis was one of sensible pragmatism: without contraception children were likely and the they needed all the protection that could be afforded them (as did the mother burdened by them assuming that she survived).

(typical other examples: if you're in the desert and it is pre-refrigeration, and you run across shellfish - don't eat it, whereas by contrast salting fish has been known for much longer; pigs revel in filth - eat pig =eat fith and get ill; milk and meat will curdle....the Roman Catholics added eating fish on Firdays as a balanced diet - and to defray the relatively higher cost of meat for many in days when people gathered in coastal/river communities; fasting or cleansing one's system is (very) occasionally good for you...the list could go on).

What about today?

Well, infant mortality is way down (particularly in the Western world).

We have a very high world population but the human race, per se, has not shown a desire to refrain from procreation. To the contrary, it seems that such is very basic (i exempt those few who are humble enought to believe that the world is not made a better place by smaller images of themselves running around ).

It is true that in the Wesern world the number of children per "family" (substitue "unit " if you wll), but there is no real risk of the human population of the earth decreasing : quite the reverse.

Accordingly, is there still a good reason to encourage (financially and in other senses) procreation?

Certainly there is still a case for protection of children who are born (again the weak - and after all it was not by THEIR choice).

But as to a need to encourage procreation per se-I doubt it. The one thing we have too many of in this world is people!

In the West, people should not be determining to have children based on financial plans of the government or other wise - and by and large let us be honest people have children for their own selfish reasons. The human race will not die out if such subsidies were removed (yes leave a safety net for those children who cannot be taken care of by their parents- it was not their fault that they were born!)

Yet the sanctity of motherhood/childbirth/having children is inviolable - at least as regards public opinion and inevitably that of politicians; why it's as American as apple pie!

So I go further - and say the time has come look at both marriage and children without historical and hysterical myopia, but from a logical point of view.

Sadly I am condemned to agree with Richard on the point of delineation of marriage: between two consenting individuals (which assumes the capacity to consent, hence ruling against bestiality and minors in no particular order) a contract of sorts.

Let us leave it at that while allowing any religion to encase it in its own wrapping/ritual, but other than historical baggage, let us not pretend that it has some truly mystical meaning to which a government or logic (note the distinction between the two) should adhere!

regards before the flames engulf me....

[mike777]

"Accordingly, is there still a good reason to encourage (financially and in other senses) procreation?"


I really think you have hit on a key phrase, procreation and the raising/protection of childern. Should government have a huge active role in this issue?

If you think the answer to this question is no, please point out who is running on this issue? In what country?

Just to get married in the Catholic Church and possible other religions this is the number one question.....Not are you gay, in fact the priest asking this question was gay . I think.

btw latest usa stats..
1) only 1/3 of households have children lowest in history
2) 1/3 of usa children born out of wedlock..on the way to sweden which is
3) 54% out of wedlock.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Jul 18 2006, 05:59 AM, said:

Are morals, as prescribed by religious doctrine, immutable?

Diving once again into my confirmation classes:

As I learned matters, a least on interpretation of the Bible holds that God made multiple covenants with man. As the convenants changed, so did "righteous" behaviour. The most obvious example involves burnt offerings and all that weirdness you find in Leviticus. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross eliminated earlier requirements involving animal sacrifice.

I've seen some interesting attempts to finesse this issue. (Some people claim that much of Leviticus is actually an allegory describe the sacrifice that Christ would make in the future.) In this case, morality (and the Bible) are both "fixed", however, our ability to interprete anything is highly suspect...

[Winstonm]

Quote

The reader will be unable to think logically because the logic of the situation affronts his deeply held beliefs... and logic cannot overcome core values.

Difficult, but not impossible. I was raised in a strict Nazarene environment, and it was only the logcial attack on their brainwashing tactics that allowed me to free myself - a logical attack that led me to openly renounce that church and the god they taught would punish me if I did not obey his (read their) rules.

On a similar note, no one has been able to explain to me this conundrum. The idea is explained that christ had to die as a sacrifice for all man's sins. No one had yet explained satisfactorily why sacrifice itself was necessary. Some have tried to say that this one individual took on the role of all the animal sacrifices, yet this still doesn't answer the basic question - why is a sacrifice needed at all?

If sacrifice is needed, either god deemed it a necessity, meaning that he is just plain cruel instead of merciful, or he had no option. If he had no option, that fits in nicely with the concept of a natural law equal to god that states that all actions must have consequences, either good or bad. Sin, by definition, would have to have a consequence.

However, if there is a natural law to which even god must adhere, then god cannot be all powerful. If the christ were sacrificed in order to placate this natural law and take the place of animal sacrifice, then the consequence part of the equation would be met and no further consequences could be due, meaning no hell, no damnation, no reason to believe. And that would mean that the consequences had been paid for all mankind, Jew, Muslim, Christian, atheist or whatever, and no further belief would be needed to gain access to this gift.

If on the other hand, god is all powerful and decided to institute sacrifice for insults when as an all powerful being he could just forgive and forget, then he is a cruel bastard and deserves no idolizing nor respect. That would mean that he would have known the eventual outcome of his decision, and chose that path anyway in full knowledge that the outcome would be to burn all non-believers in a fiery furnace for all eternity. Wow, what a nice guy, to quote Blazing Saddles.

I don't profess to know what is accurate. But I do know that what I was taught growing up makes no sense. If it makes no sense, it is not worthy of consideration.

[mike777]

This has too do with the 2 sided coin. Just and Grace

If we assume God is equally both, then justice demands it.
God is all powerful but cannot deny himself or logic.

Sin is assumed to be horrible to God..think really horrible.
Justice demands the death.
God sends himself or his only son to die for the sins of Mankind, now and in the future, why Justice demands it.
The Just God demands Justice
The Grace God sends Himself/his son/

Now if you want to throw in the Nature of Man and free choice/will that is a whole nother discussion.

[Impact]

mike777, on Jul 17 2006, 10:21 PM, said:

"Accordingly, is there still a good reason to encourage (financially and in other senses) procreation?"


I really think you have hit on a key phrase, procreation and the raising/protection of childern. Should government have a huge active role in this issue?

If you think the answer to this question is no, please point out who is running on this issue? In what country?

Just to get married in the Catholic Church and possible other religions this is the number one question.....Not are you gay, in fact the priest asking this question was gay . I think.

btw latest usa stats..
1) only 1/3 of households have children lowest in history
2) 1/3 of usa children born out of wedlock..on the way to sweden which is
3) 54% out of wedlock.

My view is that the government should take a backward step on the issue (and indeed on most issues).

It is one of the key issues over here (Oz), pushed by both conservative (Liberal) and Labor, competing strongly for the "family vote" and no one will gainsay it. Oddly enough anyone who IS going to procreate based purely on financial advantage by so doing, is exactly the first person I would seek to discourage from procreating....

We also have one territory (Australian Capital Territory - equivalent of DC) which has stipulated legality for same sex unions but the federal government is considering legislation aimed at preventing such.

Similarly (but perhaps with a more secular and less heated press) the various states have differing legislation as to what constitutes de facto relationships, rights on intestacy, access to superannuation etc both for those married, and those of same sex. Overall it is another area of controversy both as to rights and privileges with the word "marriage" itself a lightning rod for some of the groups.

Statistics of reproduction (eg lowest % of households with children) can be used to show anything- after all :-

a) the population is higher than before
we are living longer (hence households in which people are older beyond the more obvious child-bearing/rearing ages)

c) the assumption that growth of population is a good thing (or even maintaining population) which I suggest may be a false premise...


As to immutability: religions which rely on dogma and ritual cloak themselves in immutability but actually require adaptability in changing environments for relevance (although if you subscirbe to opiate of the masses doctrine, perhaps part of the attraction of religion is convincing people that life has not changed....)

The extent to which that involves sophistry or can instead be said to stem from the "true principle" is usually at least as good for a heated discussion as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....

regards

[david_c]

mikeh, on Jul 18 2006, 03:26 AM, said:

david_c, on Jul 17 2006, 08:43 PM, said:

Sorry but I don't agree that this is an argument in favour of abortion. Certainly a reduction in the crime rate would be a good thing, but you're effectively saying that abortion is good because the foetuses that are being considered for abortion are statistically more likely to become criminals than those which are not being considered for abortion. I find that argument morally pretty grotesque. It may be true - the statistics seem plausible enough - but if we're talking about morality I just can't bring myself to accept it as an argument.

Sorry, but you missed the entire point.

There is no logical basis for arguing that the cause and effect relationship between liberal abortion policies (I am NOT talking about mandatory abortion) and a low crime rate is NOT an argument for a liberal abortion policy. Of course it is: what else could it be?

In my view, the cause and effect relationship is just an observation, one which has no bearing on the morality of abortion. To say that it makes a difference is to say that some [potential] humans are more desirable than others. I do not accept this as a moral argument.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2006, 09:59 PM, said:

If so, then presumably God was setting out moral values when he handed down the commandments.

actually, the purpose of God's law (which includes but is in no way limited to the 10 commandments) wasn't to set out moral values, per se... the purpose was to show man what was necessary if man was to earn salvation - all 600+ laws would have to be obeyed perfectly... God's whole plan of salvation is both more complex and beautifully simple than that, and was necessary because a legal transfer of domain occurred in eden...

winston said:

The idea is explained that christ had to die as a sacrifice for all man's sins. No one had yet explained satisfactorily why sacrifice itself was necessary

at the risk of running people away, i will attempt to answer (mike gave the short version)... when adam chose to trust/obey satan rather than God, the first sin entered the world... think of sin as a disease from which nobody escapes... it's a fatal disease, and always results in death... it's passed from father to offspring (for adam sinned by eating of the tree, not eve - she was deceived)... by disobeying God, adam in effect gave away all that God gave to him (he was given dominion)...

God is perfectly just, so had to accept the fact of what adam had done... but he is also perfect love, and wanted to find a way to redeem (purchase) his labor of love (man and the rest of creation)... a legal transfer had taken place, and could not be illegally regained

since the wages of sin is death and since life is in the blood, there can be no remission (forgivness) of sins without the shedding of blood (death)... however, even blood sacrifice could not take away a man's sin, the most it could do was temporarily cover it (think yom kippur)... that's because *all* things were now tainted by sin, even the animal from which the sacrifice was obtained

in order to purchase man from satan's slave pits (all of the old testament points to Jesus' redeeming work in one way or another, and there is a reason slavery is found in the bible - people don't generally know or understand the reason, but it exists), a perfect sacrifice had to be offered, one not besmirched by sin... the whole old testament account of the day of atonement is simply a glimpse at God's plan

now we sorta understand the whole 'son of God' thing, why Jesus had to have God as his father... since sin is passed from father to offspring, he couldn't have had a human father and still been an acceptable sacrifice - one capable of completely taking away sins rather than temporarily covering them... one man for all sin, one time for all time

as i said above, before Christ the jews met once a year for the day of atonement... on this day, the high priest would enter the holy of holies and make a sacrifice for the sins the whole nation had committed during the year just past.. he spilled the blood of this sacrifice over the ark of the covenant (the same one harrison ford found)... the sins of the people were forgiven by that act, but they began sinning again the very next day... that's why it had to be endlessly repeated... but herein lies the simplicity of the gospel - the jews of the day had to do nothing at all in order for the past year's sins to be covered... noting except believe that it was true... God gave them a way by which they could be forgiven, they couldn't earn it and they didn't deserve it... that's grace... believing it to be true is faith... that and only that is how one is saved - by God's grace through faith

there's a lot more to it, but i've probably already outstayed my welcome

[Winstonm]

Quote

since the wages of sin is death and since life is in the blood, there can be no remission (forgivness) of sins without the shedding of blood (death)... however

Hi, Jimmy:

This is the very point I am arguing. Why is the wages of sin death? Why can there be no remission without blood? If god is all powerful and makes all the rules, then these are his decisions and I say they suck. If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

It somewhat gets back to the problems I had with my father and others of closed-minded ilk, who when pressed to explain the logic would fall back on quoting scripture as if it were the holy grail and then say it is a matter of faith - faith, a belief in something without any basis for that belief. Don't atheists have just as much faith? They believe there is no god and they can no more prove that position than someone else can prove the existence of god. They take their stand based on faith.

I happen to believe that the old testament is nothing more than a collection of Jewish mythology - a lot of war stories told at night around the campfire while the sheep were asleep. If you notice, in the end the Jews are always the heroes of these stories - is David slaying Goliath that much different from Jason and the argonauts? Isn't the story of Adam and Eve simply the Jewish version of Pandora and her box?

My brother, who happens to be a Ph.D. in religion as well as an Army colonel, says that if you read the original old testatment text you will see that it is poetry and not meant to be literal - it is moral poetry.

If adam and eve are just a fun story, then we are back to why is it necessary to sacrifice - to kill (let's use the real word) a life in order to save one?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 10:12 AM, said:

If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

God had no choice, but not in the sense of a natural law... he is who he is, and his very nature (or attributes) govern all things... since he's perfect in all his attributes, and since he can't deny any of them, he had to honor the fact that adam gave away what God had given adam

it's true that Jesus died for all.. but by giving an example of yom kippur i had hoped to explain the importance of faith... salvation is a free gift, but what good is a gift if one refuses to accept it?

i obviously disagree with your brother, with all due respect for his intellectual accomplishments.. and you are correct, if the story of adam and eve is *just* a story, and is not the reason for the things you are questioning, it calls into question the necessity for atonement

as much as i know you hate to hear it (you and a lot of others ) it does come down to faith... sorry 'bout that

hrothgar said:

There are any number of organized Christian sects that consider large parts of the Bible to be allegory and superstition.

yes, but those are the more intellectual among us... they lean on their own understandings and i'm far too unimaginative to do that

This post has been edited by luke warm: 2006-July-18, 13:16

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 10:12 AM, said:

If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

God had no choice, but not in the sense of a natural law... he is who he is, and his very nature (or attributes) govern all things... since he's perfect in all his attributes, and since he can't deny any of them, he had to honor the fact that adam gave away what God had given adam

it's true that Jesus died for all.. but by giving an example of yom kippur i had hoped to explain the importance of faith... salvation is a free gift, but what good is a gift if one refuses to accept it?

i obviously disagree with your brother, with all due respect for his intellectual accomplishments.. and you are correct, if the story of adam and eve is *just* a story, and is not the reason for the things you are questioning, it calls into question the necessity for atonement

as much as i know you hate to hear it (you and a lot of others ) it does come down to faith... sorry 'bout that

Naw, I don't mind hearing it. Just for the record, I respect your personal beliefs and I respect you as a person. You state your beliefs yet listen when others have contrary ideas. This is how it should be. None of us "knows" for sure.

[Al_U_Card]

"Jesus" or Josueh the Essene ascetic rabbi died in the typical fashion of a Roman seditionist because his creed forbade the Roman "insertion" between Jews and Yahweh. Apocryphal gospels as well as Essene texts demonstrate the level to which the Synod of Nicea went to "create" the universal (Catholic) religion that Constantine could use to cater to the broadest extents of his empire as well as his misguided personal and familial fantasies.

[luke warm]

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

[DrTodd13]

Winstonm, on Jul 18 2006, 07:12 AM, said:

Quote

since the wages of sin is death and since life is in the blood, there can be no remission (forgivness) of sins without the shedding of blood (death)... however

Hi, Jimmy:

This is the very point I am arguing. Why is the wages of sin death? Why can there be no remission without blood? If god is all powerful and makes all the rules, then these are his decisions and I say they suck. If god had no choice in the matter, and was stuck with a natural law even he couldn't change, then it makes sense - but then it would be back to actions/consequences and the shedding of christ's blood would have atoned for all, believers or not.

It somewhat gets back to the problems I had with my father and others of closed-minded ilk, who when pressed to explain the logic would fall back on quoting scripture as if it were the holy grail and then say it is a matter of faith - faith, a belief in something without any basis for that belief. Don't atheists have just as much faith? They believe there is no god and they can no more prove that position than someone else can prove the existence of god. They take their stand based on faith.

I happen to believe that the old testament is nothing more than a collection of Jewish mythology - a lot of war stories told at night around the campfire while the sheep were asleep. If you notice, in the end the Jews are always the heroes of these stories - is David slaying Goliath that much different from Jason and the argonauts? Isn't the story of Adam and Eve simply the Jewish version of Pandora and her box?

My brother, who happens to be a Ph.D. in religion as well as an Army colonel, says that if you read the original old testatment text you will see that it is poetry and not meant to be literal - it is moral poetry.

If adam and eve are just a fun story, then we are back to why is it necessary to sacrifice - to kill (let's use the real word) a life in order to save one?

First off, God is not all powerful. He does not have the ability to act against his nature. Some things are a physical impossibility even for him. One could make an argument that one of the things that is impossible is for sin to exist in the presence of God. As such, given that sin exists (if right exists then doesn't wrong also have to exist?) then there must be a place outside God's presence where those with sin must go. These statements have a huge number of unstated axioms to which they refer...axioms like God exists, souls are eternal, etc. Everyone's belief system is ultimately based on a set of axioms. Most people don't pay them much thought but somehow something that is self-evident to one person is not self-evident to another. Since all rational argument is built from axioms and we can't prove axioms (otherwise they wouldn't be axioms if you could prove them) and people disagree over axioms, the conclusion is that nothing is provable in an absolute sense. (Of course, I used logic to derive that conclusion and that is also based on axioms so I can't absolutely prove it is right. ) Only people who agree on the axioms have any chance of proving things to each other. "God does not exist" is an axiom just like God does exist. There is no proof or disproof of the existence of God and that is how He likes it.

Other questions like why can Christ's blood hide or erase one's sin so that you can stand in God's presence are more of a mystery revealed through scripture. The other example I gave was a pretty easy one. I could make a stretch and say that to cover sin you'd need something at least as powerful as God covering it so that God wouldn't be able to see it. What is there that is as powerful as God? Only God is as powerful as God but then you end up with how can God cover the sin to hide it from himself. Anyway, I can't come up with a rock solid derivative from God's nature that shows that Christ's sacrifice was necessary. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of faith.

[Winstonm]

Good response Dr. Todd. I certainly accept the concept of evil for without eveil there would be no free choice - if all you had were decisions about which good thing to do next you are not excersising free will. Evil is necessary.

However, it gets back to the same issue doesn't it - somewhere in their ancient history the Jewish people instituted the idea of slaughter of a creature in order to atone for sin - most likely this was the idea of a local priest who's brother-in-law just happen to sell lambs. (Or is that just the cynic in me from watching too much Tammy Faye and co.?)

No one has been able to explain to me why it became a necessity to slaughter of an animal to atone for sins. Why not cut down a tree? Salt a garden? Squish a spider? And what is the mechanism of specifically blood atonement? Is this a chemistry problem? Is it physics? Or is it more in the nature of legend and mysticism?

The bottom line is that without a clear necessity (God had no choice) for this occassional killing spree there would be no need for an ultimate sacrifice.

All I am saying is you may be wrong - you can believe it all you want - but simply admit that you may be accepting a fairy tale as your core belief system.

You could be right as well, in which case I am in BIG trouble.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

hi al... i don't know much about the beliefs of essene christians, but it appears that you do... maybe you can help me with something... i've read that they believe salvation is through obedience to the law of God... is this true, and do they believe that to be saved one must cease sinning? a related question is, do they believe it's possible to cease sinning?

btw, i'm not sure Jesus was an essene, if for no other reason than his belief in animal sacrifices

In reading this post, I see that the "I think (believe/comprehend/have deduced) this is what GOD does/is/thinks/can or can't do/is limited to/has invoked/has allowed etc. is alive and well. I do not wish to disparage this position, just indicate that I do not subscribe to it. That said, we are projecting philosophical and theosophical belief systems on "historical" characters and their "supposed" actions and intentions. We would be far better off applying these tenets to the modern angels and devils that are circulating freely on our planet.

[DrTodd13]

At least according to Christian theology, the Jewish sacrifices were forerunners of Christ's sacrifice and pointed to it. The animal sacrifices were symbolic but quite ineffective. The animal sacrifices were oddly designed to illustrate that sacrifice was necessary for atonement of sin but at the same time, animal were an imperfect sacrifice and thus the idea was to get them to look forward to the perfect sacrifice. Anyway, my point here is that Christ's sacrifice was necessary and that the closest non-sinful symbolic sacrifice to foreshadow it was animal sacrifice. This still leaves the question of why was Christ's sacrifice necessary. This is a deeply mystical question for which I can't provide a rational explanation. Others might be able to but I'm not a theologian. Ultimately some things are a matter of faith.

[mike777]

"This still leaves the question of why was Christ's sacrifice necessary. This is a deeply mystical question for which I can't provide a rational explanation. Others might be able to but I'm not a theologian. Ultimately some things are a matter of faith."

In common Christian theology....



God is fully Just and full of Grace then:
Sin is so horrible that that death is the only Just sentence. If you accept this and this is a big assumption then
God in Grace(undeserved forgiveness) sent his Only Son(himself) to die a painful death in place of Man. This was a choice God made.

All powerful can be a confusing term. God cannot create himself or cannot create something from out of nothing. Nothing comes out of nothing.

Now the subject of freewill and the nature of man is another thread.

Here is just a typical issue:
If we assume that the nature of man is sinful and we assume that one cannot overcome nature without supernatural invervention, why is Man condemned to death for something he cannot overcome on his own?