|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 19, 2006 19:34:06 GMT -5
So the issue of how morality is defined has appeared in numerous threads, so a more comprehensive discussion of that in its own thread might be prudent. Therefore I have a few questions: How do you define your morals?
How do you allow for differences in the morals of others?
Do you think it is bad/inappropriate for people to have moral values different from yours?
If a set of morals is different from yours, are those morals still considered valid as a value set?
A friend of mine who is a psycologist suggested that there are four primary types of defining moral values present in people. These methodologies are the simple completion of the sentence: "Something is moral if...." The answers that he suggested are: 1. It helps or does not hurt yourself or others. 2. Your parents would approve. 3. It is not forbidden by the tenets of religion. 4. It is not forbidden by law. Allow me to use a diagram to explain. www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg665r/Color%20wheel.bmpMost people have a difficult time quantifying themselves to just one system, therefore they fall somewhere in the overlap of the circles. Thus, if you think something is immoral if it is forbidden by either the state or religion, you would fall into the light blue area between quadrants III and IV. I would also like to see additional definitions of morality, because I am not sure that these four are comprehensive enough. Dr. Lawrence Hinman from the University of San Diego adds these definitions: 1. Divine Command-"do what the Bible tells you" 2. Ethics of Conscience-"follow your conscience" 3. Ethical Egoism-"watch out for # 1" 4. Ethics of Duty-"do the right thing" 5. Ethics of Respect-"don't dis' me" 6. Ethics of Rights-"all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights..." 7. Utilitarianism-"make the world a better place" 8. Justice-"daddy, that's not fair" 9. Ethics of Virtue-"be a good person" I would suggest that Arthur Schopenhauer was on to something when he said that "Compassion is the basis of all morality." Therefore, one last question: How would you add to the concepts of morality?
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 19, 2006 19:41:19 GMT -5
How do you define your morals? I define my morals based upon several factors. I think one of the largest factors is that my actions are immoral if they hurt myself or others. Furthermore, I feel that compassion should be the basis for all morality. At the same time, I feel that I have a duty to improve the world. Failing to do that may not be immoral, but it is definitely reprehensible. I accept that people are raised in different cultures and situations, and that just because they believe that different things from me does not make them wrong. I believe that all humans have fundamental worth, and I will not devalue them because they do not conform to the norms of my society. No. See above. Yes. Everyone must chart their own journey across the turbulent sea that is life. Their values are their own, and I respect that. That's a great question. I look forward to hearing from all of you!
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on Apr 22, 2006 20:31:25 GMT -5
i am not going to answer all this, but i thought you might find this intruiging. there are still two tribes (one in the south american rainforests, and the other in the plains of central africa) that practice headhunting and cannibalism. these actions are contributed through a society based on morals. to a foreign country like america, we see this as grosteque, evil, immoral and ungodly. why?
the answer is enthnocentrism. we take pride in our culture that was eastablished by our founding fathers based on biblical principles. in other words, america is defined as a christian country. so, people that practice ideas, beliefs, and customs that are not christian in origin are considered heathens, devil-worshippers and pagans. however, when these cultures look at us it is a mirrored effect. foreigners see us as strange, and sometimes they too see us as sinful, hypocritical, arrogant, selfish and downright evil. who is right? who is wrong? do numbers make a difference? do several million christians have more rights, knowledge and truth than a group of ten thousand who are not christian?
this, and other reasons, is why were attacked on september eleventh. you see... ...muslims seriously believe that we are evil. we are an impurity on allah's perfect earth because of our actions, beliefs and ideologies. muslims are not savages without rhyme and reasoning for attacking us.
this is why you hear americans expressing true sympathy for muslims during this reign of terror. ignorant americans, sometimes christians call these people "stupid, unamerican hippies" for wanting to understand why the 'terrorists are angry with us.
i do not want to be cliche, but what would jesus do?
these people are different. this is not their fault they are different, because your god made them this way. accordingly, he made muslim terrorists and you alike in his image. they are human, you are human, and you live in a wealthy, sometimes arrogant and greedy country that thinks of itself as better than everyone else. compassion is good, but understanding is better. tolerance is ok, but understanding will bring solution--and perhaps peace, not a sword. funny, jesus never used a sword, fire or brimstone to get his point across. very funny, ironic even that so many of his followers do.
do we have to be better than everyone else? whatever happened to made in god's image, and equal in god's eyes? and all that jazz.
this is a great topic and all, but i think that it simply cannot be answered in a forum. this is an action-based idea. maybe its time that the christians who vote straight-ticket republican start questioning their leaders--and their motives. because this post has everything to do with why everything is so wrong in the world.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 22, 2006 23:28:51 GMT -5
Thank you Clayton. If you find this an important topic, perhaps you should start a thread for it. I would try to like to keep this thread on topic, although no one seems interested in posting on it, anyway. Anybody still out there? I know it's end of term for me, so I haven't been here in like 36 hours, but I look forward to your responses!
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 2, 2006 18:07:30 GMT -5
no problem. i do see it has not gotten any hits, but being that its on the second page time may have killed it. start a new one, get it on the first page, and perhaps other people respond to it.
i use this repeatedly, because it makes sense to me when talking about truth, morality, etc:
truth/morality is universally relative or relatively universal.
basically, this means that one person's truth is universal in his eyes alone, and vice versa. for example, a christian will say that god's laws are universal because he sees the world from a christian point of view, yet a buddhist practices universal laws from a buddhist's views.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on May 2, 2006 19:15:59 GMT -5
Just as our "founding fathers," and the people who live in this country now, those cannibalistic and head-hunting tribes have still been given a conscience by God. But there are still people in luxurious condos in USA as well as tribes in deepest, darkest Africa who "hold truth in unrighteousness."
Romans 1:18-25
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 2:35:06 GMT -5
haha. i love how people pull that romans one card out of their pocket and expect it to be an ace or something. remember, this is presupposing that god exists, but if the average person reads this objectively you will see that it is a verse of inclusion. basically, all paths lead to god. p.s. before anyone else pulls out other aces from their sleeve let me defend myself. i am the light, way and truth. blah, blah, blah you can only get to god through christ is another example of inclusion misinterpreted as universalism. basically, god is in everything (supposedly omnescient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) so this means that christ is merely tansfigured into a representation of other religions by means of culture relevance.
a person's religion depends on a lot of things. social standards, geography, etc. gods of dense rainforests are usually natural and represented by a love of the earth above all things. a god of the desert, such as the god of abraham, is represented by topical surroundings as well. the god of (judaism and christianity) has a name which can be translated to 'god of the mountain.' Allah, of the muslims, means 'god of the valley.' are these two places realistic? let us see: mecca is situated in a valley, and is the birthplace of islam. the mountain called sinai is important to the jewish faith for that is where god revealed himself to moses and passed down laws.
you have to consider all these things when looking at a religion, than a quick, 'its right or wrong' type of attitude. however, this is what makes christianity appealing to people of all faiths, and that is that it is 'supposedly' a tolerant and inclusive faith. the only aspect of christianity that is not inclusive and/or tolerant is....
..its followers.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 3, 2006 9:40:47 GMT -5
“If horses had Gods, they would look like horses." -Xenophanes
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 3, 2006 10:13:29 GMT -5
Great topic Trekker! I'll reply to it in full when I get the chance.. still working on term papers. But I just had to say this...
AAAHHH!! The sun shines quite brightly in Africa! It is not the freaking DARK continent of DOOM. There are diverse and amazingly beautiful cultures there and have been for thousands of years. I hate hate hate when people write the continent of Africa (which is made up of 54 countries and innumerable ethnic and cultural groups by the way) off as the "dark and primitive continent of savages. DIE ETHNOCENTRICISM DIE!
Please. Never let the words "dark continent" or "darkest Africa" come out of your lips/fingers again. EVER. My head just might implode.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on May 3, 2006 10:31:38 GMT -5
Morluna,
Any country without the light of Christ, God's SON, shining brightly is a dark country. Including America.
However, what I meant by "deepest darkest" is the primitive and little known areas and civilizations.
And as far as beautiful...I would agree that the diversity in people that exist on this terrestrial ball is indeed beautiful! However, there's nothing beautiful in animinism, ancencestry worship, cannabalism, headhunting, civil war, etc.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on May 3, 2006 10:31:42 GMT -5
Please. Never let the words "dark continent" or "darkest Africa" come out of your lips/fingers again. EVER. My head just might implode. Sounds like classic Conrad! Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 3, 2006 10:57:21 GMT -5
Please. Never let the words "dark continent" or "darkest Africa" come out of your lips/fingers again. EVER. My head just might implode. Sounds like classic Conrad! Good stuff. *sees Jeff's post* *smacks own forehead* I give up. Trekker: "UH, CAP'N! HE DEHD!" XDDDDD Oooooh yes. Nice representation of ethnic African's right there. Geez... I frilling hate Conrad.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 12:14:27 GMT -5
i agree with morluna about using 'darkest africa' and other pitiful excuses to boast ethnocentrism. plus, you have to consider the world as we know it. what parts of the world are still untouched by western civilization? there is very little left that is natural, there is very little left that has not been torched by christian hands. history has proven that christian extremists like jesse will murder in the name of god, and find a way to justify it. thirteen crusades, burning times, the conquest of latin american indians by cortez and missionaries in pursuit of three g's: god, gold and glory. the extermination of 'heathen' native american indians by christian missionaries, also called puritans at the time. anthropology has witnessed the most cruel, and selfish destruction of tribes by christian missionaries in the twentieth century through indirect blows as soft as exposing natives to western culture; and even as recent as the terrible crimes committed in rwanda in 1994. this event was fueled by missionaries interference, and then misinterpreted by native africaans which turned it into a genocide, later into a government tragedy--which is all you hear on television, no one talks about how religion played a part in it.
regardless, of all this, what people like jesse and his cohorts do not understand is that the word of god has spread throughout the entire world. people have decided to accept or reject christ. children are growing up with the ability to make a choice, some accept while others 'blaspheme.' when you continuously seek out people who have made a choice, of free will, to reject christ then it only makes matters worse when these self-righteous, soap-box ministers come out to play.
there is nothing good in what they are doing, because western civilization was not created out of christianity, but rather that our cultures implemented christianity to provide ourselves with moral guidelines. however, respecting the freedom of choice, we also created breathing room, a loop hole if you will, that says that we do not have to accept the nuts that comes out of jesse's mouth.... ...and we have the freedom to stand up against him and try our damnest to stop him. he breaks the law on his own, and he says it is all for the glory of god, but no man of god would intentionally break the laws of the land that were implemented by a government which is the sword of god, according to romans 13.
the problem, and this will be the reply of many christians on this site, is that this is a direct attack on christianity and that the laws of the land want to persecute christians--and see them dead.
this is called a 'persecution complex.'
no one is out to destroy christianity. no one wants to see jesse dead, or prevent him from spreading the word of god. however, his methods are unsound, unbiblical, and deny the laws of the land. he gets arrested for breaking ordinances and common sense laws, although he screams and shouts that he was arrested for being a christian. in fact, if i remember an article right, he attemted to file suit against a police station. this is completely unbiblical.
this argument of morality is not about what is right and wrong, but who has the biggest mouth. jesse loves to yell. he gets his way half of the time, because no sane person would want to confront someone screaming down at them, and not letting them get a word in edgewise. do not forget that anything anyone says is automatically wrong according to jesse, so arguing with him is futile.
funny thing. everyone who is not a believer who uses this board is fighting for a cause that is empty. you are wrong, according to them, and you will win nothing hear. your opinions are worthless, and until you 'come to christ' you are worthless. they dont care about you until you want to get saved because its all about numbers, and even after you're saved your popularity with them diminishes because they seek fresh meat. i know my opinions are only being reinforced by people who see things from my point of view. everyone else points fingers...that's life, and that is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on May 3, 2006 12:19:38 GMT -5
Wow Clayton. Can I get an AMEN?!?
AMEN!!!! xB
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on May 3, 2006 14:22:49 GMT -5
I want to reply to the degrading comments about my lovely continent, but I don't have the energy right now. Yay for Morluna, Trekker, and Clayton for saying most of what I cannot articulate at the moment from sleep deprivation. I mean really. "primitive civilizations" "darkest Africa"? D**m.
*goes back to listening to BBC Radio*
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 3, 2006 14:47:50 GMT -5
I do not define morals at all. The only one in the position to define morality is God. He has revealed to all men His standard through the conscience as well as through the written Word.
He wrote His Law, the Ten Commandments, on stone intentionally. Men like to take morality into their own hands, as though it were a ball of clay, and mold and manipulate it to fit themselves.
There is one morality which is Gods morality. The part of punishing disobedience is God's part. He has appointed a day of Judgment when He will revenge all disobedience.
God says "thou shalt not kill". If someone says their morality says, "thou shall kill" then they have a serious problem with God. The same goes for all of His commandments, including, "I am the Lord your God you shalt have no other god's before me."
Man does not have the universal authority to dictate morality for themselves or for others. God and God alone is in the authoritative position to dictate any morals.
Any "morality" which is not God-given morality is not morality at all, but is mere opinion or preference.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 14:56:11 GMT -5
honestly, let's be thankful that jesse and his cohorts are not in africa trying to save the world. they have no experience to be doing what they are doing in america, much less the anthropological training to approach the natives of africa. i believe the outcome of a 'open air outreach' to any foreign country would only end in tragedy. i imagine that it would start out like other mission trips. jesse would enter a small village and pass out bibles. he would preach the 'word of god' through a translator who can barely speak english himself. he would unknowingly create a schism in this village because of his hypocritically, arrogant attitude that is common of people from western civilization. he would use facial expressions, gestures and body language that would offend the natives and cause a social uprising. last, and most unfortunately, the bibles and clothes and american products that are all unfamiliar to the tribe would become as an indirect assault on the people as they begin to kill one another over said products. tribesman would wander into other tribes and kill people, in the name of a god they do not understand, because of poor translation and misinterpretation. by six months time, everyone would be dead, except jesse and his criminals who would walk away satisfied... ..after all, everyone died a christian. he would return home and write about his travels on xanga and his website. he would show pictures of himself preaching and passing out snicker bars to those 'heathens.' he would then conclude that the mission was 'accomplished' because he could write down another fifty conversions for the year. a new record! hooray.
in america, its a different story. the people that curse, spit and rail against jesse are the tolerant ones. he has no idea what really lurks in the darkness, and if he had any idea he would probably kill himself to get to heaven a little quicker. unfortunately, for him, these people do not exist--and if they do then they are no friends of mine--and is the result of a disease, a persecution complex. we all know that someone is out to get jesse and friends. boo! me, the devil.
sarcasm, my friends, is the root of all language.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on May 3, 2006 15:00:16 GMT -5
Clayton, you are really starting to disturb me actually. I've noticed that you use my name about 10 times or more in just about every post you make, regardless of whether or not the post was even about me to begin with.......very strange.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 15:48:40 GMT -5
i hope its not something homosexual...
|
|
|
Post by elwing96 on May 3, 2006 16:53:48 GMT -5
Clayton, I like what you wrote about Open Air going somewhere in Africa, but I have one problem with it. There are no "tribes" in Africa, as such. Native American social structures are much closer to being a "tribe" than most on the African Continent. In fact, were you to go to ANY ethnolinguistic group on my lovely continent and call that group a "tribe" they would be horribly offended. I know you probably don't know any better, and I forgive you for making the mistake.
|
|
|
Post by dmclayton on May 3, 2006 17:05:17 GMT -5
i may not know better, but blame the anthropologists that study 'your' continent. haha. i am only calling it as i've learned from professors in the intellectual circles of alabama, regardless of how small they may be. americans can be stupid, but when it comes to the social sciences we are extremely advanced, and take every precaution when it comes to practicing a given science outside one's country. i can understand it to be offensive, but the naming of social constructs in the insider/outsider view rarely influence the peoples studied. however, since you have done nothing but show me, and other users, respect i suppose i have no other choice but to humbly apologize.
p.s. its not 'your' continent, but i know what you mean... heh.
|
|