Western Culture
- Thread starter rinard
- Start date
![[:D]](/images/smilies/biggrin.png "Big Grin [:D]")
I don't think that doing what is right is always based upon organized religion; I don’t think there is always a direct correlation. You care for animals and others in the world, especially the less fortunate from what I gather. I would say these are superior qualities. I see many that are heavily involved in organized religion that seem to lack concerns that I would see as just plain natural courtesy and concern. Granted, there are exceptions to everything.
I think you're making a good point. Organized religion has a history of doing the "wrong" thing for "right" reason. Although I practice one particular religion, by no means does that mean that I agree 100% with the doctorine and the views and positions of it's leaders. I am gratefull that I have this freedom, and while I may disagree the views of others, I defend thier right to have a different religion.
As for the statement that the laws of this country are based on the Ten Commandments, I would also like to hear the reasoning behind that argument. There has been a lot of press regarding this as a result of current events, but I'm not sure I buy it. Convince me.
As for the statement that the laws of this country are based on the Ten Commandments, I would also like to hear the reasoning behind that argument. There has been a lot of press regarding this as a result of current events, but I'm not sure I buy it. Convince me.
but societys acceptance of thing found its beginning soemwhere, somewhen and because of something. that something is mostlikely a religion. i agree with you for not needing a religion to have moral as moral is already a society factor but religion is definetly the root.
how i can have moral but no religion? easy, i see moral as advanced. it is modernized and in certain ways disconnected from the church. it is the social book of laws that make a living possible. no matter where or what the roots are.
the reason why i do not beleive in churches or religions, especially the bible and god, is that so many things in the world happen and so many thing in my own live happened that are so cruel and unfair that there can be no god. that is all for a certain purpose, and sometimes we just don't see that purpose? well thinking that god should be the father, how cruel must afather be to punish his children like this and not even letting them know why???
i don't want anybody to change his mind, so please do not to change mine. i just showed how my brain works on this topic.
how i can have moral but no religion? easy, i see moral as advanced. it is modernized and in certain ways disconnected from the church. it is the social book of laws that make a living possible. no matter where or what the roots are.
the reason why i do not beleive in churches or religions, especially the bible and god, is that so many things in the world happen and so many thing in my own live happened that are so cruel and unfair that there can be no god. that is all for a certain purpose, and sometimes we just don't see that purpose? well thinking that god should be the father, how cruel must afather be to punish his children like this and not even letting them know why???
i don't want anybody to change his mind, so please do not to change mine. i just showed how my brain works on this topic.
Interesting... Would you agree that "Morals" are basically a social contract? We agree, for whatever reason, that we won't do certain things (i.e. stealing). Since the world is really small, just you and me, accountablity is easy. But when we add a few dozen other people, we add some incentives to make sure everyone abides by the rules we setup (i.e. if you steal you, you must pay it back, plus some extra). Enforcing this is easy because even though there are a few dozen people, we all pretty much know each other. But then we add a few thousand people. Now it's easy to steal and get away with it, so we dedicate a few people to just making sure that every one is following the rules. But not everyone agrees with all the rules, but most agree with most of the rules. Morals are the rules that a person agrees to follow even when nobody is watching, even though they will never get caught. For example, I don't speed when cops are around, but if I know I can get away with it I'm doing 90. On the other hand, even if I know that I can take 5 dollars from the coffee money jar, and get away it, I don't. Because stealing is "wrong".
basically you are right with your example. the morals we are living evolved from a clerical regulation to a social codex. that is my idea.
and furthermore i think that those rules where there, at least in basics, before church was. mr. stoneage punished a theaf not because of a priest who said that is illegal but because that was a threat to his own life.
as far as the sinners are concerend, well moral of society are broken by many people many times, so are morals of religion. it doens't make a difference. the cause and result are the same. some one says it is like that, the people agree and live it. not everybody agrees and some of them obey while others trick. that is valid for church and society.
even the best christ brakes his rules of life, more than once a day somehow. everyone lies, bad or harmless doesn't care, everyone sometimes desires what others own, can do or think. another sin.
for me it is not who sets the rules, but what the rules are. furthermore i think that society and mankind evolved enough to have bigger influence on the church than vice versa. church became a business centuries ago and what is business if not the complete opposite of a strict christs life?
and furthermore i think that those rules where there, at least in basics, before church was. mr. stoneage punished a theaf not because of a priest who said that is illegal but because that was a threat to his own life.
as far as the sinners are concerend, well moral of society are broken by many people many times, so are morals of religion. it doens't make a difference. the cause and result are the same. some one says it is like that, the people agree and live it. not everybody agrees and some of them obey while others trick. that is valid for church and society.
even the best christ brakes his rules of life, more than once a day somehow. everyone lies, bad or harmless doesn't care, everyone sometimes desires what others own, can do or think. another sin.
for me it is not who sets the rules, but what the rules are. furthermore i think that society and mankind evolved enough to have bigger influence on the church than vice versa. church became a business centuries ago and what is business if not the complete opposite of a strict christs life?
I mostly agree. Consider the 10 commandments, all but one have direct social benifits (Love God). Man invented organized religion as a means to get society to abide by the social codex. Odd that a commandment is to Love God, why would you choose believe in God, follow the religion, but then not love God. Isn't that somewhat implied, that a person would love the god of the religion they embrace?
as i said, the commenadments evolved. i do not read them under the prupose of loving god, but establishing an environment that people can live in. i follow them rules for that sole purpose. i do not spealk the truth to make god love me, i speak the truth to first avoid myself from becoming trapped in it and then loosing all confidence in me and secondly truth and open mind are keys to respect from others. whatever god might think about it, i do not care.
the key is the development of those rules.
the key is the development of those rules.
Actually I have read a good portion of the Bible. The point of the matter is, since obviously it went over your head, that many religions believe that the imbibing of fermented beverages is against the way of god. Take for instance the Mormon religion, many different protestant groups, as well as a fair amount of dedicated babtists. Did it ever occur to you that the fact is that religous sects judge people for there shortcomings, and this is in fact against the true message of a good amount of the Bible¿ This makes those people hippocrites. But sense some are so completely blinded by the fact that they think they should take it into their own hands to do gods work, I guess that the hippocracy could only be held in the hands of the BLIND! So there may be the very, VERY slight possibility that some of the passages in the bible are from around that time, What about tha old testament¿ What about the rest of the passages¿ Were these visions that were brought to the ones that wrote them, or was it just some guy that decided to play the all time best practical joke¿
Last edited:
GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?
You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:
About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.
Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.
Let's start with the first three:
I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH
Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER
Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.
Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.
And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE
Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.
But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS
This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?
You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:
About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.
Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.
Let's start with the first three:
I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH
Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER
Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.
Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.
And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE
Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.
But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS
This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
in some cases i even tend to agree with this essay, but others are just exaggerated and misinterpreted as far as their purpose in concerend. the covet thing for example. i understand it as you may not be jealous or envy another for what he has. jealousy and envy create trouble. it is okay when you want to have something that another one has, too. just don't envy him for it and get personel. just buy it, do it, create it or whatever.
just for the record.
just for the record.
You need to keep your posts straight.
I don't think anything went over my head. No where did you state "other religions". You tried to make your point using Christianity as a basis. Many religions do regard alcohol as evil. You should not use Jesus or Chrisitanity as an example when it's obvious that Christianity does not regard alcohol as evil.
If you have read the Bible, including the New Testament, then you know that Jesus did not preach the judging of others.
We can all look at the shortcomings of people. People are not perfect. They are sinners and hypocrites. Deciding your morals, or lack of it, on the way people act and not the facts of a particular religion is very poor way to make a decision. People will always make an excuse to do what they want to do and blame it on religion, when they know that the hate that feeds their desires is not based on any Godly rule.
I don't think anything went over my head. No where did you state "other religions". You tried to make your point using Christianity as a basis. Many religions do regard alcohol as evil. You should not use Jesus or Chrisitanity as an example when it's obvious that Christianity does not regard alcohol as evil.
If you have read the Bible, including the New Testament, then you know that Jesus did not preach the judging of others.
We can all look at the shortcomings of people. People are not perfect. They are sinners and hypocrites. Deciding your morals, or lack of it, on the way people act and not the facts of a particular religion is very poor way to make a decision. People will always make an excuse to do what they want to do and blame it on religion, when they know that the hate that feeds their desires is not based on any Godly rule.
Last edited:
Quite on the contrary. I used christianity as an example of what can happen if you take belief structures to seriously, and let it lead you in directing your actions or thoughts of other people. If you would have read past the point that seems to have hit a sore spot, then you would have realized this. It was not a slam on the bible. It was pointing out that "a lot of" people that follow the religion based upon what they believe the bible means, leads to not a true following of what it says, but rather a hippocritical point of view of other people.
I'm sorry, but I read your post several times. This is what you wrote:
You didn't hit a sore spot, I have a hard time with people making comments about things they know very little about. I do agree with your assessment of people not thinking for themselves. I grew up Catholic and I am still Catholic. I realized very early on that in order to decide how I choose to believe I must make the decision on my own. This meant studing the entire Bible on my own, Old and New Testament. I visited several churches and listened to what they had to say. While I find the Catholic religion to be lacking in some areas, I also find it to be the most comfortable religion for me.
You didn't hit a sore spot, I have a hard time with people making comments about things they know very little about. I do agree with your assessment of people not thinking for themselves. I grew up Catholic and I am still Catholic. I realized very early on that in order to decide how I choose to believe I must make the decision on my own. This meant studing the entire Bible on my own, Old and New Testament. I visited several churches and listened to what they had to say. While I find the Catholic religion to be lacking in some areas, I also find it to be the most comfortable religion for me.
Having religious beliefs is not a bad thing in the least. What gets in the way is when you base your entire life off of that given set of beliefs. Spirituality and religion in general is one of the very few things that can help somebody get through their life without either turning suicidal, or homicidal. I personally don't really give a sh!t about anything, which makes it very easy to discard anything that is bothering me. The whole point of what I was saying (or at least what I meant to say) is that when any religion, or set of beliefs is taken to seriously, the most probable ending scenario will be one of violence, or hate.
I agreee that the laws of any given culture are largly based on the cultures popular religion (which naturally begs the question, "Did man invent religion to support social rules?"
But it could be said that our laws are based on the Koran, or nearly any other religion, as nearly all religions define actions which are harmfull to others as wrong.
Furthermore, if the laws of this country were truly based on Christian principles, then the first and possibly only law would naturally be "Love one another" (could you imagine getting arrested for not loving Push?) While Jews remain bound by the Law, Christians are set free by the sacrafice of Christ, and are therefore not bound by the Law. For true Christians to base laws, or even morals, on the Law of the old Testament, is to reject the salvation of Jesus, - A hipocracy!
There is insufficient evidence that the laws of this country are based in Christianity as the laws are not fully compiant with Christianity (Unlike many Muslim countries where specific religious rules are Law). It could be said that our laws are based on any number of religions.
BTW - I am happy to debate this, as long as arguments are not personal, and based on facts.
But it could be said that our laws are based on the Koran, or nearly any other religion, as nearly all religions define actions which are harmfull to others as wrong.
Furthermore, if the laws of this country were truly based on Christian principles, then the first and possibly only law would naturally be "Love one another" (could you imagine getting arrested for not loving Push?) While Jews remain bound by the Law, Christians are set free by the sacrafice of Christ, and are therefore not bound by the Law. For true Christians to base laws, or even morals, on the Law of the old Testament, is to reject the salvation of Jesus, - A hipocracy!
There is insufficient evidence that the laws of this country are based in Christianity as the laws are not fully compiant with Christianity (Unlike many Muslim countries where specific religious rules are Law). It could be said that our laws are based on any number of religions.
BTW - I am happy to debate this, as long as arguments are not personal, and based on facts.