Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a taboo thought for many believers because of the circular reasoning regularly deployed in the Bible disparaging "mere" human reasoning and exalting religious faith as a virtue. Their conditioned response would be that you are experiencing pride before a fall and that god knows better (implying that what god allegedly knows can be known and understood with certainty).
What they don't realize is that they are (mis)using their own judgment too, it is just basing their judgment on the failed epistemology of religious faith. In the end, each of us decides what is right/wrong or what to do/not do, using whatever criteria they decide to use -- good, bad or indifferent. But monotheists in particular are accustomed to hiding behind god's skirts so that they don't have to directly "own" their own decisions. But alas, they are still deciding, whether they like it or not. Just as we are. The question is who has a better basis for making such decisions.
I think I've made clear my opinion about such taboos...
Few enjoy even being challenged, much less corrected. It is possible not only to hold incorrect beliefs, but to hold correct beliefs for wrong reasons or justifications. A good teacher, mentor or friend will always challenge you to think clearly, even concerning things you're not wrong about.
For example, it is better to refrain from murder because it's a great harm to the victim and the victim's circle of loved ones, and to the perpetrator, plus a violation of a personal goal to be peaceful, loving and empathetic, than to refrain because you fear you might get caught or punished, be it by civil authority or by god. I mean if the latter is the ONLY reason you don't murder, rape and pillage, it's better than none at all, but it is better to have unselfish motivations not to be a murderer, grounded in an understanding of actual harms in the real world rather than asserted harms in some asserted realm of spirit.
Most definitely.
Quote:
Morality works better when it's handled directly rather than indirectly. "Because I said so" is god's lazy way out.
Some may lazily interpret it to be that way, but it's just that.... a lazy and ignorant interpretation. And yes, people do see it that way. They haven't made the connection. They're robotic in their thinking, going through the motions without actually stopping to understand the meanings and reasons of things. Maybe it is just easier to NOT think. Maybe it is fear. Fear to question. I know a long time ago, I think I had that fear. Fear to question. Maybe fear of what I was going to discover. There's nothing to fear though. Fear is an enemy. It keeps people in darkness (ignorance.)
Anyway, back to the first quote up above. Love fulfills the law. The entire law is fulfilled by that one commandment (in Christianity) of "Love your neighbor as yourself". If you love your neighbor as yourself, of course you do not need a law to tell you to not harm other people. To not steal from people, etc. The law was the schoolteacher. Love fulfills the law.
Some may lazily interpret it to be that way, but it's just that.... a lazy and ignorant interpretation. And yes, people do see it that way. They haven't made the connection. They're robotic in their thinking, going through the motions without actually stopping to understand the meanings and reasons of things. Maybe it is just easier to NOT think. Maybe it is fear. Fear to question. I know a long time ago, I think I had that fear. Fear to question. Maybe fear of what I was going to discover. There's nothing to fear though. Fear is an enemy. It keeps people in darkness (ignorance.)
Anyway, back to the first quote up above. Love fulfills the law. The entire law is fulfilled by that one commandment (in Christianity) of "Love your neighbor as yourself". If you love your neighbor as yourself, of course you do not need a law to tell you to not harm other people. To not steal from people, etc. The law was the schoolteacher. Love fulfills the law.
Of course. I was simply agreeing with and reinforcing your points.
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. It's clear to me we're for the most part on the same page when it comes to these points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
