Who's More Moral?

You won't like this, but yes.I don't say that their actions are good. At least not by our current standards.But I do strongly believe that, while society has the right and the duty to uphold what the collective mind feels is 'good', judgement of men will not revolve around adherence to society's laws.For instance, almost every culture since day one has had some immoral (by our standards) rules. Come on, even the Jewish people had rules that would be immoral to us. They were still the chosen people.And my question stands unanswered. If there is nothing real about morality, how can we even judge another? Ah, maybe you were not around for all of that. Exactly. This is why we throw people in jail no matter if they 'felt' ok with themselves while robbing their neighbors. Maybe to them it was justified. I make no pretenses about the fact that I leave judgement up to the Discerner of Hearts. All we have are rules to protect society. This is a main reason why I DO believe that there must be an individual reckoning and account for our actions. At least, if there in after-life. Otherwise, we are all doing whatever we can get away with, dying, and reincarnating to the same stupidity. Either that, or only living once.We live in a mind that recognizes its mortality. We also act as if immortal. This proves nothing per se, any more than the argument 'men are building altars, therefore God must exist'.Still, for a philosophy of life to have results, it must give some purpose to what we already know we have to deal with as humans. Whether our brains are chemical labs and purely transient, or whether there is really a meaning to what we feel, our morality needs to be useful and not only go with what we know now, but with what we feel now.In other words, there may be no meaning whatsoever to life, but to be successful at living you have to 'make up' some meaning. Well, it is not immoral to buy a small car, or to go to church to see friends. I am not sure what the point is here. In all honesty, isn't it the person's conscience which does tell them they are being a hypocrite or justifying themselves?Maybe you feel that I am saying we should leave morality up to the individual. I am not. We need laws just because you can't trust other people to follow their consciences. You also can't trust that their conscience is developed. I picture conscience like a muscle, it needs use to grow. Before I told you that just because a person follows rules , they are not necessarily moral. Now you are saying that just because a person follows their conscience they are not always moral. Just bear in mind that I am only thinking about God's perspective, not a perspective where we are the judges. Well, just let's say I've had time to think about it. Nope. You can assume however that I see it as a self-indulgent practice to believe you can invalidate a belief in prayer, which is essentially invalidating the Christian God, by quoting a Harvard study. Very ambitious of you. Do you have any idea how many of these studies have been done?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Of course the two could be used interchangably, but when I say it I mean.Moral code; a code of conduct agreed upon by a group or devised by an individual.Morality; the ability to, as Ringo says, 'own ourselves' and to live by following the consience above and beyond the dictates of any code.

You need to take Rob's comments in context, and for what they're worth. Otherwise you could argue endlessly about the single most influential event/person in history.How long do you think it took before the 'shift' took place?How long do you think the French Revolution was in the works before this 25 year period?Can you compare the numbers in Europe during the Revolution to the numbers of early Christians in Rome and elsewhere? You could also wonder how long this effect will reverberate. The one which you say took much, much longer (than something) to effect?

Rob said it does not matter who is more moral. Maybe not, but still it keeps on coming up...in the wrong places at that. This, is what I wanted to hear. Can you put the 'absentee landlord' analogy into practical terms? Examples of rent hikes, maybe?Do you believe that a pragmatic secular morality can also be on a proxy basis? Where you are letting society's morals stand in for your own?I do, and I feel it works both ways. The people I lose respect for are the stereo types who seem to prate the exact same speeches as their peers, be they atheist or theist. That is somewhat silly to me. Surely you know that many Christians believe God is guiding everyone's morality whether they like it or not? Why should I expect a Christian to be better than anyone else? Maybe they could be more motivated, or more indoctrinated, but in outward appearance I think we would do the same things as a very moral atheist. So it doesn't matter where it comes from, as you say. Maybe the last 7 suggestions. Love thy God, love thy neighbor. I don't think it appropriate to distinguish, but that they should go hand in hand. Love of God should beget love of neighbor, and love of neighbor would bring about further grace to love God. It ALL has to do with our relatioship with God. Remember the sheep and the goats? Maybe Luther would disagree, but then I never could quite get that faith/works thing.

I am half and half here.You are partially right; the *law* needs to be internalized.I also believe that part of the law IS written on our hearts and discernable thru' the conscience.Call me tediously old-fashioned about it.Those Jewish laws of fast and circumcision, ablution and prayer ritual, are just the local code. This is what the Pharisees excelled in.Listen up Larni...the good stuff, concern for others, proper concern for one's responsibilities to themselves and to their environment, accountability for action, justice, etc...this is what I feel is not taught.It makes no difference to me that there be a 'natural' origin. (It is easier to explain in this thread some of these ideas when there are better terms and willing participants.)When I say they are not learned, and when I say conscience is not learned, it is because these above are the kind of things that really need to be 'owned'.How can you teach a person to empathize? How can you teach a person to learn from their mistakes and actually desire to improve?We do have whatever natural abilities needed to do this. But the conscience to me is that drive that you can discern in a person who 'gives a hoot' about what matters.It is something that you can pound and force and threaten and reward, but you can't teach. It must come from inside.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Just so you don't musunderstand, I do expect a certain behaviour out of Christians. It is true that those who claim Jesus loudly are those who should have thought in depth about His teachings and made them a part of themselves. It makes no sense to worship a God who you don't agree with, or even to follow a leader for no other reason than habit and family tradition.What I mean to say is that I don't expect better behaviour from a Christian than from a person who has reached the same conclusions of love and peace thru reason alone. Perhaps I should say that I expect consistancy amoung Christians because it is implied that they are already knowledgable and agreeable to these goals.This is not true of nominal christians.It is also IMO not the problem of leaders and clergy only.In all ages the great saints have lived side by side with the most corrupt of popes and kings.Leadership where it fails must be combatted with education. In other words even the christian parent must make available the materials for spirituality.There were times even when being Christian or Catholic was just the 'in' thing, and it is hard to know during these times when a person had really internalized their morality. Perhaps not so hard; actions speak louder than words.Also, simply having a goal of love or peace does not create only ONE method of accomplishment. There will always be thoe who feel they must live by the sword, and they are confusing to those of us who profess the same good.

I think I get it.We can ask what a landlord would want, an reason it out ourselves based on empathy?Or sit and do nothing while checking and rechecking the lease. Reminds me of the parable of the talents. Maybe. I contend that when a Christian surrenders, he IS owning the morality of the church. When he is rebellious, he finds that his own mirality is not the same one as the church has. Bad, or good?Or maybe you mean that this surrender is just an outward following of conduct. One can follow rules out of fear or laziness, looking for a quick fix, and with no real internalizing.I think we are going over the same ground in many different vehicles. It's all the same to me. A relationship is based on action, not on professions.

Ok, gotta flag you down again!Btw, all the print on my page is coming up tiny, anyone else? It is abundantly clear that Rob feels a God-based morality is superior. Since this is what I asked in the OP, I suppose it is quite on topic. Now, if anyone can even begin to question 'who's more moral?' or 'performance', it would be relevent to find out what the goal is. Otherwise, we have my morality being better for me, yours for you, Ross Perot's for him, and Danny Bonaduce's for him. Then we have a Chinese morality, and a bronze-age morality, one for show-biz and one for cowgirls.Personal morality is good, but without some sort of industry performance standards, you are comparing preferences.I can debate for hours the physical attractions of the family husband collection. But in order to find the best husband for me, I have to find out how he performs not only FOR ME, but in way of what needs to be done in reality. What needs to be done for simple survival. There's that word again.So far, I see that religion can be a short-cut to the goal, or a dead-end.

Thanks Ned.I noticed a few things at once but I believe they are all related.Didn't know on who's end it was, and the folks in chat sometimes play tricks. (I think)Anyway, I blame the cat.

Well, {Rob if you are reading this too} it's not that I mind a few choice quotes...or verses or what have you. But I do find that I respond less and less to Rob because one, the over-preaching obfuscates whatever point that WAS on topic...and well, he never responds to me anyway. We agree that morality must be flexible. I think anyone with half a brain and some reading comprehension would have to agree as well.We agree that there are different accepted standards in ice hockey and elsewhere, and even morals in the hockey game. Some checks are good, some bad. Some are gray area where only the player knows if he meant to get the other guy in the ER.But these peers that you speak of have no business judging if there is no 'real' standard to morality.If I judge my sister's men there must be a standard 'real' thing which is desirable for men to have. There are a few...care for offspring, responsibility, dependability.What I want to ask is whether you see morality as a preference for football over hockey, or something made up of those things which will be vital till kingdom come? Actually I am sure I don't need to ask you this exactly, but peer review is just not something that I find all that valuable.Hm. Who are our peers? Those in our church? Those in our neighborhood? Those who are in society in general? This gets into critical thinking. My 'peers' may agree with me, but that doesn't mean I am behaving morally. So you see there needs to be a real standard of morality.

Do you have to be moral to get to heaven?If yes, then how much of morality is 'faith in Jesus'?I contend that you most certainly have to be moral to get to heaven, and that faith without works is no faith at all. You know this, it's in the Bible. NOne of us have excuse for no works. You wouldn't dream of no works. Therefore you know that they are needed. Not just wanted.

How do you people all know my problems? I knew there was a real doctor here somewhere anyway. Ringo said call her in the morning.The zoom option doesn't work for this, but I just rebooted and it went away. Thanks.

Granted, I don't know you too well and I could be surprised, but in general, I leap, and I have found that there are not too many other 'conclusions' amoung the born agains.Just remember that it is only ONE view, and a fairly recent one. Well, if we don't need morality, I would wonder why you are discussing it. Just out of curiousity if you will. And of course the age-old question...just how does one get born again? Of course I understand the 'I found God' phenomenon, but this getting born again stuff doesn't give me much to work with.See, us Catholics I believe would tell you, that works give grace, grace enlightens faith, and faith equals salvation.Getting save is too risky. It is faith out of nowhere. Or, yeah, God finds you. Too bad for everyone else.We must believe we can all find God, by works if needed. So in other words, without works you aren't born again no matter how much you think you are.Anyway, this is not the purpose of the thread. Where are all the atheists?

Ok, if you say target that is different from observor. Yes you do. The same one that applied to the Good Samaritan. Well, ok, I am posting for nothing. I agree with you as long as 'peers' are targets. Just didn't want to ignore your response.

I wasn't holding my breath for any different morals to pop up here. Outside of a believer's requirements to God, I don't think there are any.What God tells us to do ,hm?To me that is as simple as following our conscience.