Not really... Religious 'teaching' means that someone had to come up with the idea first to be able to 'spread the word', ie. external influence of one (or more) opinions. Gemma is talking before any of these external influences, before religion incorporated these basic human traits. You may believe god is in you... great.... a lot of people don't.
i was raised catholic and taught that we were made in Gods image. and that God was inside everyone.
the external influences are there; but you need to look at the payoff. the catholic church wanted us to spread the word and bring in more followers; then told those followers they needed to give 10% of their net income to the church to support the church and as a sacrifice to God. now the catholic church is the richest entity in the world so why do they need my 10% when priests aren't paid anyway?
so as in anything else; you must first follow the money.
...
This would work only if the founding statement was correct:
"Religion has the sole source of morality, yes."
That is not a true statement. It is a relative truth... that is, it is your truth and not the absolute truth.
Nope, religion informed the morality of our founders and they informed the morality of our laws.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
Nope, religion informed the morality of our founders and they informed the morality of our laws.
...
Nope... Man has existed a lot longer than religion and he created social order long before he created religion.
Unless you believe in the Bible... where Man's existance is about 5,000 years and his religion exists prior to his creation.
That is relative truth... not absolute.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Nope... Man has existed a lot longer than religion and he created social order long before he created religion.
Unless you believe in the Bible... where Man's existance is about 5,000 years and his religion exists prior to his creation.
That is relative truth... not absolute.
I would argue that the exitence man had before religion and law was far inferior to his current existence. Therefore, religion and subsequent law have made man a superior creature.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
i was raised catholic and taught that we were made in Gods image. and that God was inside everyone.
the external influences are there; but you need to look at the payoff. the catholic church wanted us to spread the word and bring in more followers; then told those followers they needed to give 10% of their net income to the church to support the church and as a sacrifice to God. now the catholic church is the richest entity in the world so why do they need my 10% when priests aren't paid anyway?
so as in anything else; you must first follow the money.
So.. are you saying that as a catholic, what you are taught (ie the pretty image of god being inside everyone) is just a ploy to make you feel good and get money out of you? Nice..... How can anyone say one is made in God's image as God is not an human entity as such and no one knows what this 'spirit' would look like.. oops... another discrepancy... damn...
I would argue that the exitence man had before religion and law was far inferior to his current existence. Therefore, religion and subsequent law have made man a superior creature.
Yep.. just read onelongsong's post... vastly superior....
So.. are you saying that as a catholic, what you are taught (ie the pretty image of god being inside everyone) is just a ploy to make you feel good and get money out of you? Nice..... How can anyone say one is made in God's image as God is not an human entity as such and no one knows what this 'spirit' would look like.. oops... another discrepancy... damn...
i'm not a catholic anymore because i found the flaws of the church and found the church is not teaching God as he is. the church is the ploy; being created by man; based on greed and power.
if i take a picture of you; the picture is not you; the picture is not a human entity; but it is your image.
if i take a picture of you; the picture is not you; the picture is not a human entity; but it is your image.
Of course the picture is not a human entity but an image and that image is a likeness of a human being.. me (unless of course the picture is doctored, etc.). Therefore if we are the image of god, god looks like 'us'. ie human beings. But, hey.. who cares... except for those who believe in that, I guess. Then there are way too many questions for them to ask themselves but those questions would be too controversial for them.
i hate to answer a question with a question; but who started these churches? and why so many different "religions"? i can become a minister for $20.00 out of the back of a magazine. i then get all the tax benefits and all that goes with it. i can start a church to honor the return of the GREAT WHITE BUFFALO and thus form a religion. recognised and protected under the constitution. all for $20.00.
now this fits your deffinition perfectly.
is it a a tax dodge? is a quest for power or recognition? it's a religion by law. so where does this leave your argument?
Where does it leave my argument? My argument was very simple, it's that you have your definition of religion, mammasan has his definition. So no, mammasan isn't confusing religion with church.
Where does it leave my argument? My argument was very simple, it's that you have your definition of religion, mammasan has his definition. So no, mammasan isn't confusing religion with church.
then the entire thread is moot without an agreed deffinition.
Of course the picture is not a human entity but an image and that image is a likeness of a human being.. me (unless of course the picture is doctored, etc.). Therefore if we are the image of god, god looks like 'us'. ie human beings. But, hey.. who cares... except for those who believe in that, I guess. Then there are way too many questions for them to ask themselves but those questions would be too controversial for them.
like God is man with a higher concousness. able to use the rehlms of the mind we can't imagine.
And I find it foolish that people even need to get defensive about it. Even the worst serial killers have some degree of morality. It's impossible not to. Therefore, anyone who claims anyone else doesn't have morality is making such an absurd statement that it's hard to believe people would be bothered by it.
Wow, i find this discussions philosophical. It's not something i usually talk about.....
I have to say that people who don't have religion have morals ( take me for example ) It also got me thinking about criminals, now if you say they've got morals, maybe some of those morals are distorted......For example: serial killer who kills prostitutes because he thinks they are pollution to the society. I think he has distorted morals, thinking that what he is doing is good, when in fact it is bad....Or maybe he is just mentally insane? Like most of other serial killers?
I would argue that the exitence man had before religion and law was far inferior to his current existence. Therefore, religion and subsequent law have made man a superior creature.
...
But, religion does not create morality. Early gods and religions to worship them were created to explain away the things early man was unable to figure out... such as the Sun... the Moon... and Death. Morality comes from the need to survive... you need others in your social order... to hunt and to fend off intruding tribes... in order to survive. The basic rule of don't kill your neighbor in his sleep comes from your need to sleep without having to worry about your neighbor killing you in yours.
Yes... Religion does play a role in helping parents to instill moral values in their children... but, religion alone does not insure morality.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I can't help but feel a little sad to see so many people who associate love for their fellow man with a love for god. Such an association implies that without god, there is no love for fellow man. And if that association is the truth, then we as human beings are naturally without love until we find a "reason" to love. Love would not be love if it was dependant on a reason.
I once read a poem that went on and on about discovering humility through a respect for god. My question is how is humility really achieved when it is experienced only in the presence of something "greater". If you ask me humility is not about lowering one's self to a "greater" thing. It is about lowering one's self to whatever level it takes to achieve "equality".
Let's make no illusion that people in general go about their day fulfilling personal beliefs about who is above who and who is beneath who. This is the plague of mankind. We all believe in some respect that he is a better person in that regard and she is a better person in this regard.
The cure to this affliction is to see all people and all living things on an even keel. Religion does not teach this. Instead, it teaches that all things are beneath a certain thing. What you end up with is people still buying into the concept of what is "greater". Without a "greater" thing, religion has no basis. And so that's why we see followers of religion shutting out all who don't believe such and such "greatness".
A belief in "greatness" is itself another tendency of the mind to create a "reason" to love. It's people saying, "I love you because loving you is a "great" thing to do -according to my "greater" thing. You see, it's not that I want to see you as my equal. It's that I am automatically "greater" than you because I identify my love with the "greatness" of god."
Is it really so hard to love thy fellow man without having to associate that love with "greatness"? Apparently, it is. Otherwise, religion would not be as popular as it is.
I don't know that morality has ever come solely out of religion really, rather it's a combination of all the information presented to you and how you process that or how you are taught to process that information. Religion might be a part of it for some, but it is not capable of being the sole bastion of morality. Parents, teachers, outside influences...then you get old enough and start making up your mind based on the input you've received.
Some moral ideas may spring from religious dogma, but even for religious people morality can't come solely from a book even if you take every word in that book completely literally. Morality still comes from interpretation and one not need be religious to have moral ideas of proper and improper.
I think you're putting the chicken before the egg, or the other way around, or whatever. . . .
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this yet, but it seems me that its more likely that religious laws and ideals are mostly based on fundamental human moral values, not the other way around. The fact that the same basic ideas which consider attributes like respect for others, generosity etc positive, and attributes like greed, selfishness etc negative appear in all the major religions suggests to me that the basic moral concepts are universal to humans, and don't belong to any particular religion.
It makes sense when you think about it. In order for society to function with any degree of harmony we all need to behave in certain ways which we consider 'moral' and avoid immoral and selfish behaviours. As a species we depend on our ability to co-operate for survival. To co-operate effectively we need to have an innate sense of fairness and right and wrong. Religion just incorporates this innate sense into its rules.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
then the entire thread is moot without an agreed deffinition.
I don't think we need an 'agreed definition' cos we're not going to find one. What we need is the person who initially said 'there is no morality without religion' or whatever... we need THAT person to give us his/her definition of religion so we know what we're debating
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I would argue that the exitence man had before religion and law was far inferior to his current existence. Therefore, religion and subsequent law have made man a superior creature.
Hahahaha... well I would strongly argue AGAINST that. How are we now superior? Ok maybe technologically... but where has that got us? We're destroying our planet, it's all about money, those who don't have any and those who can't get enough. Do you REALLY think todays society is something to be PROUD of? I really don't think we've changed at all, apart from our motives. Back then it was all about survival, LITERALLY, today it's all about greed. If you're a 'religious' person, surely you can see that?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Comments
i was raised catholic and taught that we were made in Gods image. and that God was inside everyone.
the external influences are there; but you need to look at the payoff. the catholic church wanted us to spread the word and bring in more followers; then told those followers they needed to give 10% of their net income to the church to support the church and as a sacrifice to God. now the catholic church is the richest entity in the world so why do they need my 10% when priests aren't paid anyway?
so as in anything else; you must first follow the money.
-Enoch Powell
Nope, religion informed the morality of our founders and they informed the morality of our laws.
-Enoch Powell
Nope... Man has existed a lot longer than religion and he created social order long before he created religion.
Unless you believe in the Bible... where Man's existance is about 5,000 years and his religion exists prior to his creation.
That is relative truth... not absolute.
Hail, Hail!!!
I would argue that the exitence man had before religion and law was far inferior to his current existence. Therefore, religion and subsequent law have made man a superior creature.
-Enoch Powell
So.. are you saying that as a catholic, what you are taught (ie the pretty image of god being inside everyone) is just a ploy to make you feel good and get money out of you? Nice..... How can anyone say one is made in God's image as God is not an human entity as such and no one knows what this 'spirit' would look like.. oops... another discrepancy... damn...
Yep.. just read onelongsong's post... vastly superior....
i'm not a catholic anymore because i found the flaws of the church and found the church is not teaching God as he is. the church is the ploy; being created by man; based on greed and power.
if i take a picture of you; the picture is not you; the picture is not a human entity; but it is your image.
Of course the picture is not a human entity but an image and that image is a likeness of a human being.. me (unless of course the picture is doctored, etc.). Therefore if we are the image of god, god looks like 'us'. ie human beings. But, hey.. who cares... except for those who believe in that, I guess. Then there are way too many questions for them to ask themselves but those questions would be too controversial for them.
Where does it leave my argument? My argument was very simple, it's that you have your definition of religion, mammasan has his definition. So no, mammasan isn't confusing religion with church.
naděje umírá poslední
then the entire thread is moot without an agreed deffinition.
That's why people make dictionaries.
naděje umírá poslední
like God is man with a higher concousness. able to use the rehlms of the mind we can't imagine.
and different dictionaries have different deffinitions which is why i stressed for a common denomiator to debate intelligently.
Wow, i find this discussions philosophical. It's not something i usually talk about.....
I have to say that people who don't have religion have morals ( take me for example
But, religion does not create morality. Early gods and religions to worship them were created to explain away the things early man was unable to figure out... such as the Sun... the Moon... and Death. Morality comes from the need to survive... you need others in your social order... to hunt and to fend off intruding tribes... in order to survive. The basic rule of don't kill your neighbor in his sleep comes from your need to sleep without having to worry about your neighbor killing you in yours.
Yes... Religion does play a role in helping parents to instill moral values in their children... but, religion alone does not insure morality.
Hail, Hail!!!
I once read a poem that went on and on about discovering humility through a respect for god. My question is how is humility really achieved when it is experienced only in the presence of something "greater". If you ask me humility is not about lowering one's self to a "greater" thing. It is about lowering one's self to whatever level it takes to achieve "equality".
Let's make no illusion that people in general go about their day fulfilling personal beliefs about who is above who and who is beneath who. This is the plague of mankind. We all believe in some respect that he is a better person in that regard and she is a better person in this regard.
The cure to this affliction is to see all people and all living things on an even keel. Religion does not teach this. Instead, it teaches that all things are beneath a certain thing. What you end up with is people still buying into the concept of what is "greater". Without a "greater" thing, religion has no basis. And so that's why we see followers of religion shutting out all who don't believe such and such "greatness".
A belief in "greatness" is itself another tendency of the mind to create a "reason" to love. It's people saying, "I love you because loving you is a "great" thing to do -according to my "greater" thing. You see, it's not that I want to see you as my equal. It's that I am automatically "greater" than you because I identify my love with the "greatness" of god."
Is it really so hard to love thy fellow man without having to associate that love with "greatness"? Apparently, it is. Otherwise, religion would not be as popular as it is.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I think you're putting the chicken before the egg, or the other way around, or whatever. . . .
I don't know if anyone else has suggested this yet, but it seems me that its more likely that religious laws and ideals are mostly based on fundamental human moral values, not the other way around. The fact that the same basic ideas which consider attributes like respect for others, generosity etc positive, and attributes like greed, selfishness etc negative appear in all the major religions suggests to me that the basic moral concepts are universal to humans, and don't belong to any particular religion.
It makes sense when you think about it. In order for society to function with any degree of harmony we all need to behave in certain ways which we consider 'moral' and avoid immoral and selfish behaviours. As a species we depend on our ability to co-operate for survival. To co-operate effectively we need to have an innate sense of fairness and right and wrong. Religion just incorporates this innate sense into its rules.
-C Addison
True, but you could have asked how mammasan understand 'religion' instead of saying he's confused.
naděje umírá poslední
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you