Religion, moral and values.

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

---

I am a huge Luther Van Dross fan, and I don't remember those hateful lyrics from any of his R&B songs. You are making that up, especially since Luther was a huge fan of whores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I am a huge Luther Van Dross fan, and I don't remember those hateful lyrics from any of his R&B songs. You are making that up, especially since Luther was a huge fan of whores.

---

Even more hateful than R&B :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

4 out of 10 points are correct. I believe it was Luther who said one should throw its reason out: "Die verfluchte Huhre, Vernunft". This is what he said, and: ""Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets." and ""Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his Reason."

---

I am getting the impression that Luther thought reason was a whore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I am getting the impression that Luther thought reason was a whore.

---

I see you threw out your reason for the greatest part as well, since it took you so long to find out :)

-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for [...], hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-abortion is completely legal and accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Doesn't sound so moral to me, quite the opposite, in fact.

---

Are you actually saying that it is immoral for people other than heterosexual males to occupy positions of power? Care to share your reasoning for that?

Reason is what separates us from animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

-pre-marital sex is now the norm and fully accepted
-gays are more accepted than ever before
-positions of power are no longer reserved for [...], hetrosexual males
-most blasphemy laws and other such restrictions of free speech have finally been removed
-abortion is completely legal and accepted



Are you actually saying that it is immoral for people other than heterosexual males to occupy positions of power? Care to share your reasoning for that?

---

Women in positions of power, LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

And I mean it

The troll has reared its head. Subtle at first, but now apparent he was trying to draw some of our more religiously conservative folks into the fray by agreeing with him. Based on his previous posts in the BR, I thought he was acting out of character.

GG

Skullheadq - from this and other threads, I do not think you like modern society very much.

But I think if anything we live in a more moral world today in the past. I attribute this to the increasing (historically speaking, and only reversed very recently) dominance of the nuclear family, and the decline of the working-class, and in turn its absorbance into the middle-class and its more traditional Christian (and post-Christian) values.

It's hard to describe what I mean, but these social conditions create a really stifling atmosphere when it comes to morality. Like with teh gays. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, there was an article somewhere about how its a haven for gay people, because most people don't really care about it, desipte the fact that the country's religious laws carry the death penalty for sodomy.

On the other hand, if you are gay in the Bible belt, you might not face any legal problems, but you will be hounded of of your family, school, work, church etc.

As for pre-marital sex, I am not necessarily again it. Having dropped that bomb, I will now leave you all in suspense as to what wonderfully interesting opinion I could have on the matter.

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

---

It's becuase he's getting swole!

Quote:

---

It's hard to describe what I mean, but these social conditions create a really stifling atmosphere when it comes to morality. Like with teh gays. In Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, there was an article somewhere about how its a haven for gay people, because most people don't really care about it, desipte the fact that the country's religious laws carry the death penalty for sodomy.

---

I remember an article like that. Let me try and look it up.

EDIT: Found it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Mad Arab

I remember an article like that. Let me try and look it up.

EDIT: Found it.

---

That's the one IIRC, puts a very different perspective on things here and in the middle-east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Ten bucks says Rhy got a hawt threesome after some heavy drinking saturday night, and now tries to justify his actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

It's becuase he's getting swole!

---

:laugh4:

lol, but no. I was just thinking about this when reading Genesis, and I wondered how much of what we think of as marriage is Biblical.

We make marriage into a fancy and legalistic ceremony - things, which, as a crazed Protestant, I do not like. Because these things are always unscriptural, or an attempt to undo the Gospel by returning us to the bondage of the Judaic law.

So, how much of our idea of marriage is Biblical? Well, first off, the union of one man and woman is a creation ordinance, and as such something natural to the condition of mankind. The marriage ceremony, on the other hand, is not. There is absolutely no need to be married by a priest/minister, no Biblical precedent. When was Adam 'married' to Eve? Well the answer is found in Genesis which made me think about this, because when Isaac is considered to have become married to Rebekah when he took her into his tent.

Obviously sleeping with someone in itself doesn't mean you are married and meant for each other for the rest of your lives... but if you do it with the intent of staying with that person then that is what marriage is all about... not fancy ceremonies which are unbiblical and more cultural than anything. And when they cost thosuands of pounds nowadays, I think people can live together before becoming officially married.

I think it is necessary. Some understanding that there are moral truths that transcend convenience and egoism is very important. I view morality as transcendental, the real question is; Is it? How do we know? Do we just say "because it is"? Isn't that the same thing as being a theist in a way? It is based on unknowable truths that you just accept defacto.

There is no morality without "God", only subjective actions that may or may not be polite but have no inherrent moral value, so cannot be good or bad objectively in the long term. Morality in the way we know it exists cannot exist without "God", loosely understood. A world without a plan just is. Most people who are iffy on God know what is right and wrong in a superlative sense, so maybe their beleif or lack of belief is irrelevant. The truth exists whether we believe it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I think it is necessary. Some understanding that there are moral truths that transcend convenience and egoism is very important. I view morality as transcendental, the real question is; Is it? How do we know? Do we just say "because it is"? Isn't that the same thing as being a theist in a way? It is based on unknowable truths that you just accept defacto.

There is no morality without "God", only subjective actions that may or may not be polite but have no inherrent moral value, so cannot be good or bad objectively in the long term. Morality in the way we know it exists cannot exist without "God", loosely understood. A world without a plan just is. Most people who are iffy on God know what is right and wrong in a superlative sense, so maybe their beleif or lack of belief is irrelevant. The truth exists whether we believe it or not.

---

So, well, explain why Japan is not a nest of sins.

Edit: Why is it based on unknowable truths? Moral equal what is good in society - no?

So that is a truth right there, religion playing no part.

Why do we not murder our boss to take his job - because if everyone murdered the boss it would kind of not be very nice to be the boss.
Why do we generally honour our parents? Because we one day will be the parent, and we will assume we will have more life experience than our kids and would want them to respect it.

The list goes on.

Do your seriously believe that the christian moral code is some sort of invention? That prior to that people did not see a reason not to, say, kill?

Japan is one of the most "Religious" modern nations on earth.
"Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature."

Most people are "religious" and believe in a God. Even those who are not religious believe that, in the face of their reality that there is no right or wrong that somehow, in some way, it matters how we live our lives. Is this judgement of a right way and a wrong way to live life a despicable vestige of their faulty religious genes, or is it a hint to the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Most people are "religious" and believe in a God. Even those who are not religious believe that, in the face of their reality that there is no right or wrong that somehow, in some way, it matters how we live our lives. Is this judgement of a right way and a wrong way to live life a despicable vestige of their faulty religious genes, or is it a hint to the truth?

---

Murder is wrong, yet many religions have practiced human sacrifice. Was that a wrong way to live life? It's also something that cannot form without a religion, since only religion can make this matter (outside extreme cases of starvation), to give this sacrifice a meaning.

If you're completely alone, is there a right way to live a life? Not really and it would probably cause insanity (pets doesn't count, since you're not really alone having one).

So every decision on how to live your life in the right and the wrong way is based on getting a working social interaction and also have control of your life (the feeling of having control is one funtamental safety feeling).

Now, having a working social interaction with your specie is fundamental your survival. For mating, at least and for a pack animal like humans, working group dynamics. So there's significant genetical imperative to develop genes that promotes working group behaviour. So there's no suprise that an intelligent social animal will come up with a universal set of rules (within that specie, human intelligent lions would probably have other rules), since it's in their blood.

Disconnecting those rules from religion has the advantage of flexibillity. Rules are after all what the vast majority consider as acceptable behavior. That means that if circumstances changes, then the rules might also need to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Murder is wrong, yet many religions have practiced human sacrifice. Was that a wrong way to live life? It's also something that cannot form without a religion, since only religion can make this matter (outside extreme cases of starvation), to give this sacrifice a meaning.

If you're completely alone, is there a right way to live a life? Not really and it would probably cause insanity (pets doesn't count, since you're not really alone having one).

So every decision on how to live your life in the right and the wrong way is based on getting a working social interaction and also have control of your life (the feeling of having control is one funtamental safety feeling).

Now, having a working social interaction with your specie is fundamental your survival. For mating, at least and for a pack animal like humans, working group dynamics. So there's significant genetical imperative to develop genes that promotes working group behaviour. So there's no suprise that an intelligent social animal will come up with a universal set of rules (within that specie, human intelligent lions would probably have other rules), since it's in their blood.

Disconnecting those rules from religion has the advantage of flexibillity. Rules are after all what the vast majority consider as acceptable behavior. That means that if circumstances changes, then the rules might also need to change.

---

Absolutely brilliant.

There are two seperate questions here being conflated.

1. Can someone be moral without God?

2. Can morality exist in a world without God?

Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.

Morality exists in the world. God doesn't exist.

Therefore, morality is proven to exist without any gods.

If you're correct, PVC, then where does God get his morals from?

If it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral, then it is God that defines what moral is. If so, if God would have declared murder to be morally correct behaviour, then it would be. Yet I think most people, even those who are religious, would consider murder immoral. A religious person might say that God would never declare murder to be something good, beacuse God is good and murder is evil.

What does that mean? It means that moral exists independently of God.

If you base your moral values solely on religion, then it must follow that you consider any behaviour potentially morally correct. If some lost part of the Bible was discovered, that revoked the fifth commandment ("You shall not kill") and replaced it with "You shall kill", then a such a person would change his moral values regarding murder.

If you don't consider every kind of behaviour potentially morally correct, then you must accept that moral is defined by something else than God. Any other conclusion is illogical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There are two seperate questions here being conflated.

1. Can someone be moral without God?

2. Can morality exist in a world without God?

Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.

---

Your argument as to '2' is nonsense.

From the Stanford University Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

Quote:

---

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

---

If you claim that morality cannot exist without God, then tell me which god. Because Odin's morality differs somewhat from that of Ganesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There are two seperate questions here being conflated.

1. Can someone be moral without God?

2. Can morality exist in a world without God?

Yes, to "1", no to "2". It is a philosophical impossability.

---

It is? Thank you for that I'll just blame the devil for not returning that wallet I found

From a biology perspective, morality is defined by a collection of guidelines which evolved as [our] ancestors did passed down through the generations from parents to offspring. The framework demarcates more or less where collective interests trump those of the individual. Incidentally, such a framework of behaviour (moral = good, not moral = bad) which is enforced by a broader society is not exactly unique to the human species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

God doesn't exist..

---

Got some proof?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

Got some proof?

---

Onus of proof is on you mate.

Seriously, the quality of trolling has severely declined recently, ever since ACIN hung up his trolling hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Onus of proof is on you mate.

Seriously, the quality of trolling has severely declined recently, ever since ACIN hung up his trolling hat.

---

I thougt the onus of proof is on the one who makes wild claims. If he said he lacked the faith to belief in a god, the burden of proof would be on me, but the claim that nothing like a god exists would require proof, and any fact requires proof, and he knows for a fact there is no god. I then ask is this his faith or does he know this for a fact, and if so, can he prove it is a fact? If not, then he would be agnostic and not atheist.