Morals.

[Pyrotex]

Gosh, Questor, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to lecture YOU on what the Bible says.

[TheBigDog]

For example, the "modern" separation of church and state came out of the Thirty Years War in northern Europe, 1600-1650, a bloodbath fought between the Catholic Church and the nascient Protestantism favored by England, northern Germany and what became The Netherlands. At the end of that war, they established for the first time in Europe that the local "state" had the right to choose the religion of that state, and that in any disagreement between state and religion, precedence would thereafter be given to state law. Many states went even further and forbade any religious entity from having its own army -- a move that turned out to be a pretty good idea.

I would disagree that today's "Separation of church and state" stems from the event that you site. It was common practice in Europe prior to Revolution to have an official state religion, and to extend certain human rights specifically to members of that religion. And in the worst cases, criminalizing specific religions. This is what lead to the Quakers fleeing to the new world. When the Constitution was being drafted the freedom of religion granted by the first amendment is specifically pointed at preventing state sponsored religion that would limit the rights of those outside that faith, or criminalize other religions. There is nothing in the Constitution about separating church and state. That concept came later when reviewing other writing of the founding fathers and trying to interpret the "Intent" of the amendment. The concept of separation of church and state is in fact a famous mis-interpretation of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and used out of context to drive a position that he never intended.

 

As for religion being the bane of mankind. In most cases, it is used as an excuse, or a front for a power play. It is not the cause of the strife. Look to oppression of freedoms and human rights, primarily by unelected governments for the biggest cause of wars in history.

 

Bill

[Pyrotex]

I would disagree that today's "Separation of church and state" stems from the event that you site. It was common practice in Europe prior to Revolution to have an official state religion, ...There is nothing in the Constitution about separating church and state. That concept came later when reviewing other writing of the founding fathers and trying to interpret the "Intent" of the amendment. The concept of separation of church and state is in fact a famous mis-interpretation of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, and used out of context to drive a position that he never intended.

I said that was where the concept was initiated, or started (for Europe). I didn't say all the states separated themselves from religion back then. But that is where we see the first instance of ANY legally specific separation.

 

Prior to 1650 in Europe, it was religion (predominately the Catholic Church in the south and Protestants in the north) that controlled states and the prosecution of law. But after 1650 you see states establishing by law, that churches cannot, for example, cause the state to declare war. It's the FIRST split, a split that widened over the years.

 

Every American history book I have found, including one written in the early 1920's--say just the opposite about church-state separation. I have read Jefferson's letters to Adams, and I can assure you that he was most specific and unambiguous about his fear that church would use state for its own purposes or vice-versa. That can be no doubt of that if you actually read his letters. The sins of church-state collusion were still fresh in the minds of our founding fathers. They remembered the killings in Massachusettes that arose out of a merged religious-state.

[questor]

it would seem to me that morality is quite simple and can probably be best summed up by the Golden Rule. it seems that others think morality can mean many things and is exceedingly complex and convoluted, bearing upon governments, religions, laws, food intake,and general opinions. i try to reduce things to a cause and effect simplicity which satisfies my mind. those who see this as a much more complex issue should work toward satisfying their own minds. good luck.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

questor:

it would seem to me that morality is quite simple and can probably be best summed up by the Golden Rule. it seems that others think morality can mean many things and is exceedingly complex and convoluted, bearing upon governments, religions, laws, food intake,and general opinions. i try to reduce things to a cause and effect simplicity which satisfies my mind. those who see this as a much more complex issue should work toward satisfying their own minds. good luck.

So what you're saying is that there is no truth here to comprehend. Nothing whose definition we can agree upon. Nothing in our nature that requires this thing we're trying to catch hold of.

In other words, truth is a myth or isn't something we need to concern ourselves with.

But if God created us questor, how would He look upon that? Here He's given us a nature, an identity and the tools necessary to understand that nature. And you're saying that well, who cares? It's all a myth and illusion anyway, right?

Maybe the test of life for us is to understand what it is that we are.

Or should we just follow the advice of people who interpret one of the many books transcribed on behalf of a God. Myself, I'd go with the test and not believe in interpretations. I'd assume that God doesn't need us to bow or follow or worship. God would just want us to behave according to design and that means that God would want us to figure out what we are.

 

The reason this subject is so important to me - and to you I might add, is that morality is the distinguishing characteristic of mankind. And strangely enough, if we give up on understanding, then we surrender to immorality.

[Pyrotex]

it would seem to me that morality is quite simple and can probably be best summed up by the Golden Rule. ....

Actually, I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I would prefer to keep a little flexibility in the joints, so to speak, and when defining my own personal morality, the Golden Rule works just fine. Pax.

[Pyrotex]

...The reason this subject is so important to me - and to you I might add, is that morality is the distinguishing characteristic of mankind. And strangely enough, if we give up on understanding, then we surrender to immorality.

Yeah, this works for me, too. Rock on.

What the hell?!?! I'm agreeing with both of you????

[questor]

Steve, i would think a person could view an event and immediately know if it was moral or not, using the Golden Rule. if you are not satisfied with that as your measuring stick, i guess the only alternative is to invent your own morality based upon your feelings.

[ughaibu]

Questor: Are you suggesting that the world's populations were entirely amoral before religious books were written? I have to wonder how the authors were able to wirte about moral issues.

[questor]

Ugh, why would you ask this question of me?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

questor:

Steve, i would think a person could view an event and immediately know if it was moral or not, using the Golden Rule. if you are not satisfied with that as your measuring stick, i guess the only alternative is to invent your own morality based upon your feelings.

You might be right. I would consider that you are being dishonest here and I consider that immoral. False witness and all that?

Your response was an event. You obviously do NOT think that the Golden Rule applies to my relationship with all things. I think you are incorrect.

I think you want it to be limited to people because you want different rules when considering man's relationship to man than we have with man's relationship to existence.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - is based upon honesty. All I'm saying is that honesty is how we have to deal with existence, why is it so hard to understand that morality figures in there too?

Science deals with things and their nature. But science doesn't deal with morality, why? We need honesty - we need morality - in both areas. And honesty is respect for truth. It sounds like you don't want truth to intrude on morality, is that right?

[questor]

Steve, i don't know you or anything about you except my perception of your thoughts as you express them. i'm not judging you or accusing you of anything. all i'm saying is that you are having a wrestling match with something which seems pretty obvious to me. i'm not a saint, but my life is lived by helping those near to me if they need it and doing no harm to others and the least harm i can to the environment. i am honest in my business dealings and one can depend upon my word. i get my concept of morality by being raised in a home exposed to the teachings of Christianity. i am not religious in the dogma of man's churches, but i am a believer in a creator, because nothing else makes sense to me. if the atheists prove to be correct, i will have to bow to the truth. i believe in fairness and will defend it. why is the golden rule not the answer ? and if it is, you have no further soul searching to do.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Steve, i don't know you or anything about you except my perception of your thoughts as you express them. i'm not judging you or accusing you of anything. all i'm saying is that you are having a wrestling match with something which seems pretty obvious to me. i'm not a saint, but my life is lived by helping those near to me if they need it and doing no harm to others and the least harm i can to the environment. i am honest in my business dealings and one can depend upon my word. i get my concept of morality by being raised in a home exposed to the teachings of Christianity. i am not religious in the dogma of man's churches, but i am a believer in a creator, because nothing else makes sense to me. if the atheists prove to be correct, i will have to bow to the truth. i believe in fairness and will defend it. why is the golden rule not the answer ? and if it is, you have no further soul searching to do.

Good response. I like you questor because you actually said you'd bow to the truth. Thank you. In my morality, that's the only thing one should ever bow to. So perhaps our moralities are not that far apart. :hihi:

[disturbing news]

Morals do not come from religion. Morals are the embodiment of our conscience. Religion is to often set in stark black and whites. It is wrong to steal right? If you are starving you may steal a loaf of berad to survive. Is this wrong as often stated in religion, or is it acceptable morally? Only the theif truly knows. Morals are within.

[Southtown]

Morals do not come from religion. Morals are the embodiment of our conscience. Religion is to often set in stark black and whites. It is wrong to steal right? If you are starving you may steal a loaf of berad to survive. Is this wrong as often stated in religion, or is it acceptable morally? Only the theif truly knows. Morals are within.

I agree. Too bad religion rarely agrees with scriptural morality, ay?

“

(for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);”

—

Romans 2:14-15 asv

[TheBigDog]

Ever wonder what the world would look like today if there had been Cliff's Notes when the Bible was first written?

 

Bill

[HydrogenBond]

Morality is a set of laws and procedures that help human's coexist. In nature, animals go by an inner code of natural instinct. Humans appear to have lost that connection requiring external programming to help us approximate the natural human instincts needed for civilization.

 

The problem with moral law is that it divides things into good and evil. In the bible this is symbolic of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For one to know morality, one needs to know both sides of the law, the good and the evil. These do not concel in the brain but create two distinct data organizations, one around good and the other around evil. The data organizaiton associated with the darkside of moral law is symbolized by Satan. This is symbolized by Satan being in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This darkside data organization, or Satan, which is induced by the darkside of moral law, is what drives the darkside of human nature. The solution is also the underlying cause. Original sin is essentially using manmade law for morality over natural hunan instinct and the resultant formation of a darkside within that drives violation of the law. This often requres new laws to overcome, adding to the darkside of human nature.

 

One can easily seee this affect throughout history. A stricter morality often causes the self righteous to become more evil in the name of good. The darkside within is unconsciously motivating them so that the ends justify the means. The Spanish Inquisition was trying to stamp out evil spirits using torture. They became much more evil than that which they were trying to neutralize because they were unconscious of the darkside data organization created by their very strict laws.

 

Natural human instinct is symbolic of the tree of life and is morally neutral. Christ summed it up in two guidelines, love God and love your neighbor. There is no polarization set up in the mind with this basic set, allowing a lot of flexibility in life but with the constraint of treating everyone like family. This is natural human instinct for civilization. Like in a family there is room for differences, because of love. Functional family looks out for each other, while also cutting each other slack, so at the end of the day they are still family. Beyond the family is moral law and things begin to change for the worse.