Can we be moral without religion?

[willy]

Believe how?

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Comes with being a Christian. In your terms that makes me a fanatic? The evidence I have seen and how I have been taught to read the bible it holds true to for me. Yes I believe Jesus is who he said he was. I have some fine company. We are about to celebrate Christmas and it is based on the Bible. This is the book you refer to?

Some of the bible is literal, Actd for instance. Other parts are letters and other parts are allegory. Who wrote each section and who were they communicating to with each book? The bible is not one book but many and yet they all fit together and yet they were written over a long period of time by many different authors.

I was at the Getty in LA last year and they had some very early translations. It is cool to see how the integrity of the original text has managed all these years.

I could have a long conversation about why I think the bible is so important to my faith but I don't know your experience or your learning’s. I would not presume to know what you have explored and why you have come to your conclusions.

[newbie]

Willy, I am referring specifically to people who follow Christian fundamentalism. To them the bible is the ultimate authority, and everyone else's beliefs be they Hindu, Buddist or Muslim, are irrelevant for salvation. Some of their leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, proclaim that every word in the bible is true. Debate or skepticism is not allowed. Evangelists believe that it is only through Christ that you will get to Heaven, and some even claim if you haven't accepted Jesus you will go to hell. Some of these people use the bible to justify and further their own hateful causes, such as killing abortion doctors, homosexuals, and blacks (KKK). I realize this is an extreme fringe but they use the same bible as you do. I respect anyone's beliefs up to the point where they are used to harm others. I also have enough humility to realize that I could be wrong. Can the same be said of fundamentalist Christians today?

[willy]

Some of their leaders, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, proclaim that every word in the bible is true.

I think you can include the Pope in this statement. The problem is people like Pat Robertson proclaim the truth in the bible and then make statements that contradict that truth. The story in Genesis, the 10 commandments and the sermon on the mount lay out the context for the entire bible. The golden rule needs to be applied, treat others as you would want to be treated and the great commission; Love thy neighbor as I have loved you.

But I will say to be a Christian you have to believe in Christ. This is a choice and I believe that others have the right to make that choice. If they don't believe God calls me to love them as if they were my brothers and sisters in Christ. Believing in Christ does not make them infallible but just forgiven. If they misuse the teaching of God then I think it is for God to judge not me.

I have stated that I believe in Jesus. The great I AM. According to the scriptures he is the one way to heaven. To through this part of Christian theology out would make the rest worthless. At what point does God remove salvation I don't know. Christ came to live the perfect sinless life and then died an undeserving death that we might be able to have a relationship with God through his perfect sacrifice. (General foundational Christian theology, but to remove Christ or to say he was a great teacher and only that would greatly diminish the whole faith. In fact why bother; it might as well be some new age feel good faith where we can pick and choose what we like)

Pluralism to me does not mean that I have to some how adopt all beliefs; the major religions have much different views on salvation. They can not all be true. In our Country and our culture I think it is important to enable people practice and grow in their own belief. That is not to say that they can all be equally true. Faith and spirituality is a choice and external pressures don’t remove the choice factor.

[Riverwind]

In our Country and our culture I think it is important to enable people practice and grow in their own belief. That is not to say that they can all be equally true. Faith and spirituality is a choice and external pressures don’t remove the choice factor.

I agree that our society must allow individuals to pursue the faith of their choosing. I also agree that it is an over simplification to say that all faiths must be equally valid.

However, religious faiths frequently come in conflict which means the state must choose a side in order to maintain order. For example, some Muslims (and Christians in Bountiful, BC for that matter) believe that polygamy is acceptable. Humanists and some Christians believe that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships.

I feel that the state must choose the side that preserves the right of each individual to follow their faith provided doing so does not inflict harm on others.

You can make the argument that polygamy harms the young women who are often coerced into the relationships at a young age and makes it difficult for them get a fair settlement if they choose to leave the marriage. For that reason, the state has a basis to refuse to allow polygamy.

On the other hand, SSM harms no one so the state should allow it. Some people may feel that living in a society that sanctions SSM harms their religious sensibilities, however, that is not sufficient harm to justify gov't prohibition.

Abortion is a tougher issue: some people feel that life begins a birth not conception and that aborting a fetus is no different than euthanizing an animal. No amount of talking or compromise will ever get the people on both sides of this issue to compromise so the gov't has to make to choice to allow freedom. In other words, if you believe abortion is murder then don't have one.

Again some religious people may feel their religious sensibilities are harmed by a society that allows abortion but that is not enough harm to justify prohibition.

In all of these examples, the state never claims one set of religious beliefs to be superior to others - it just does its best to ensure that people are free to practice the religious beleifs of their choosing.

[Dominik]

Can we be moral without religion?

Yes

Is religion necessary for civilisation?

No

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion is not necessary at all.

[Black Dog]

I fear the error here is to equate religious belief with opinions on abortion (or attitudes to gays, for example). That is, religious means pro-life, pro-marriage whereas non-religious (agnostic? atheistic?) means pro-choice, pro-SSM. (Did I get all the nuances?)

Picking up where my erstwhile alter ego left off...

August1991: the biggest problem with the "Roe Effect" as I see is it fails to account for social attitudes. That is to say: religion has been decreasing in importance and strength in all of the western world for generations, even in a place like the U.S. where religion is still strong (in that people profess to beleive in it). People seldom practice what they preach.

Religion is politics by another name; but religion is also belief, it is hope, it is life. The current variant of the Left doesn't get this. The future children of religious parents might get it.

I guess I don't because I have no idea what this means.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Can we be moral without religion?

Yes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got a good book for Christmas.

"The Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations"

It's lot's of fun.

Heeere's a good one ....

"If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." - Lenny Bruce (1925-66)

[willy]

Kinda tasteless for Christmas. A little political correctness would be appertained for at least on day.

[Leafless]

Can we be moral without religion?

This is a dumb question and the answer is NO.

Simply ask any secularist where society would be to-day with the absence of religion?

Gosh, good question and a question no body can answer.

Fact is is we probably would still be partially organized groups of roving murderous animals with no other purpose than to kill for food, kill each other and copulate for no specific reason other than enjoyment.

Of course secularist know what morals are because at one time before becoming aduts they were taught morals and the difference between right and wrong and these teachings are attributed mainly to Christianity in the Western world.

This is the ONLY reason secularist would be able to teach morals because they know currently WHAT THEY ARE but with the progression of time morals will soon be forgotten with the absence of religion just as parenting as been forgotten with so many parents that they cannot even feed their own children.

The definiton of father and mother is fading.

In fact kids are becoming street kids at an earlier age than ever.

It's a fact, plain and obvious religion is necessary for the preservation of civilization.

[BubberMiley]

I think Leafless is the perfect example how it is difficult to be moral WITH religion. It's just a self-righteous opiate for the contemptuous.

[newbie]

Can we be moral without religion?

This is a dumb question and the answer is NO.

Look up the word in the dictionary and see if it mentions religion.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear newbie,

This is a dumb question and the answer is NO.

Indeed, the correct answer is YES, because we must have been. Societal structure (and ergo morals required to make them not fall apart)pre-dates religion, in almost every form but superstition.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " I think leafless is the perfect example how it is difficult to be moral With religion."

Well Bubber religion IS regarded as a moral practise.

Now come on tell me so is swap clubs, polygamy, secularist, SSM etc.

Social institutions make society work and the big ones are families and churches and universities.

Society is an institution instilled with morals and values and that's part of the reason why Mr. Martin is going to lose this election is that he is drifting away from supporting Christian inspired values and morals.

No one wants a pagan for PM.

[BubberMiley]

Well, I don’t think too much about sex clubs, etc., because I’m not that interested in them, so I don’t purport to be an expert on their morality. I don’t think I would be comfortable in one, but if consenting adults enjoy them, who am I to say they’re wrong? As for SSM, that’s clearly more moral than a homosexual misrepresenting himself and marrying a woman and starting a family. It’s honest, represents a commitment to the relationship, and doesn’t hurt anyone else. I’d say that’s the foundation of morality.

As for religion, after the crusades and oppression and terrorism in the name of god, I’ve given up on it. People must find their own relationship with their creator and not allow that to be dictated by any other person or document. These things ultimately just get in the way.

And again, too many people are interested in religion only because it facilitates their feeling superior to those who are not interested; this is common from the Christian Right to al qaeda.

[newbie]

Society is an institution instilled with morals and values and that's part of the reason why Mr. Martin is going to lose this election is that he is drifting away from supporting Christian inspired values and morals.

No one wants a pagan for PM.

Martin is going to lose because of the perceived scandal and corruption of the Liberals. Harper has convinced enough voters that a change is needed. This has nothing to do with morals and values, and should have nothing to do with politics.

[BubberMiley]

Besides, Leafless would be very much surprised how much his personal christ superstition is founded on pagan traditions. Merry belated Xmas.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " too many people are interested in religion only because it facilitates their feeling superior to those who are not interested; this is common from the Christian Right to al qaeda."

Now I don't know how Christianity in the Western civilized world compares to Al Qaeda a group who justifies terrorism concerning disturbing religious believes.

But you included an interesting phrase " feeling superior to those who are not interested."

Based on this, you feel inferior because families or individuals feel they might need or do need spirtual guidence concerning a relative harmless religion as what Christianity offers in order to add a little more meaning and direction in their lives?

What you say could be true that some individuals don't need religion, but those that do you label as being or thinking their superior because in their own minds they look down on members of society that think their FREE to do whatever they please out of the confines of what most people would consider an action or event that works against common good values and morals.

We have laws in society some enforced by law and others by members of social institutions that form the basis for a controlled civilized society.

From what you said it proves that religion is necessary for the preservation of society for without it we could be in danger of an out of control moralistic free fall resulting in a dysfunctional society.

The loss of a national religion due to lack of government support is on the same level as a country that lacks a military. In Canada's case we can hopefully rely on the U.S. in the time of extreme need.

But without government support concerning a national religion, who have Canadians to turn to for values and moralistic support that initially helped build Canada.

No one, and that is what the danger is when led by a government like the Liberals who don't want to offend no one but allow others to offend Canadians and their majority national religion.

What we need in Canada is leadership reflecting Canadian values to ensur our social institutions will continue to provide the type of base necessary for a civilized lifestyle.

[BubberMiley]

I'm sorry, Leafless. I find it difficult to debate with you because of your extreme propensity for the run-on sentence (it's very, very hard to understand what you're saying).

But if you look at how messed-up society was 200 years ago when religion had more control over it (i.e., slavery, extreme bigotry, rampant wars, dire poverty), I think socially we're better off without it.

I also think that people with no religious affiliation who live an ethical life (i.e., act in a positive manner and don't hurt anyone else) are far more moral than those who attend church and yet are extremely negative to most of their fellow citizens and would like to see many of them persecuted for being who they are (e.g., homosexuals). You should recognize that, while you are and should be free to practice your religion, you should never be allowed to use that as an excuse to oppress others.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " You should recognize, that while you are free to practice your religion you should never be allowed to use that to oppress others."

You continually use religion saying it oppresses and conveniently omit that there are other factors that constitue an organized society with these factors closely associated with law and include differentiating between good and bad, moral and unmoarlistic behavior.

For instance prositution and homosexuality is legal in certain countries but this does not make this type of behavior good or a moralistic thing and is deplored by many who might think you are infringing on their rights with the type of vulgar behavior that induces depravity and degrades a civilized society.

In Canada we are a democratic country and the government of the land must stand up for majority rule in a capitalistic defined country as we are not all employees of the federal government with most of us working for private industry and living in private dwellings.

Unless the federal government wants to care for us all , provide employment, shelter and all the other fringe benefits found in a communist country it must allow majority rule who decide what the laws are and what is socially acceptable.

If you have trouble understanding me I will tell you loud and clear I do not support multiculturalism or so called minority rights which in my estimation is destroying this country at a rapid rate.

[BubberMiley]

“In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. – Mahatma Gandhi

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place."- Mahatma Gandhi

I believe you are living in the wrong country for someone who believes in secularism and equaltarianism.

Even Mahatma Gandhi and his quotes are not entirely original and therefore hypocritical as they were based on Hindu beliefs a religion he was critical of.

I really don't know what country would best suit your political aspirations, do you?

[YankAbroad]

Remind me again -- what's the difference between Paul Martin declaring that Stephen Harper isn't a real Canadian and hates Canada's values because of his views on health care. . . and your declaring that BubberMiley should leave Canada because his values don't square with yours on religion?

[BubberMiley]

I believe you are living in the wrong country for someone who believes in secularism and equaltarianism.

I really don't know what country would best suit your political aspirations, do you?

Okay, you once explained that you call yourself Leafless because you don't feel you belong to this country because (as I struggled to understood through your misspellings and run-on sentences) it's become too secular under the Liberals.

Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable in this country, even after this week. (Even if I don't support the party, I support the fact they won the most ridings and are free to govern as they see fit.) So I'm keeping my maple leaf and am wearing it proudly (because I know the CPCers know if they even mention anything that sounds remotely fundamentalist, they'll lose all their support but that from Alberta).

[BHS]

Can we be moral without religion?

Yes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I got a good book for Christmas.

"The Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations"

It's lot's of fun.

Heeere's a good one ....

"If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses." - Lenny Bruce (1925-66)

Lenny would have been better off making a joke about them wearing a pot leaf or somesuch, as an indirect reference to his being stoned. Keeping in mind, that the neighbourhood where Jesus died probably didn't do executions by electric chair in the 1940s. Whatever. It was funnier before I wrote it down.

[Leafless]

BubberMiley

You wrote- " Once, you explained you call yourself Leafless because you don't feel you belong to this country ( as I struggled to understood your misspellings and run-on sentences) it's become to secular under the Liberals."

"As I struggled to understood"-????? Don't worry Bubber, I understand.

I use run-on sentences and custom quotes to save space and time.

I edit my own post and mistakes are corrected but when posted mistakes appear--beats me but I don't deny I do occasionally make spelling errors.

But then again so does everyone else make errors including yourself. I don't make this an issue as our post and replies are not formal and makes no sense to be picky in this area unless of course you imagine yourself as being beyond approach.

What I did say concerning my screen I.D. Leafless is that the Liberals have successfully removed this country's identification concerning nationalism and dedication and replaced it with Liberalism under the guise of a cheap republic.