Posted on 06/15/2007 8:23:23 AM PDT by G. Stolyarov II
Contrary to my usual method, I will presently argue a rather moderate position-but one absolutely essential to the preservation of a free, civil, and tolerant society. My purpose here is not to refute any religion or religion-based system of ethics. Nor is my purpose to dissuade anyone from adhering to a religion or religion-based system of ethics. On the whole, I consider ethics based on religion to have beneficial consequences in this world, and I have found the individuals today who genuinely practice a religious morality to be decent, respectable, trustworthy, and upright persons. Such people are my friends and neighbors, and I consider quality of life in the world to be substantially improved by their presence.
(Excerpt) Read more at associatedcontent.com ...
I am
G. Stolyarov II,
Editor-in-Chief,
And socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin. But it always ends that way.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
This is how it always starts.
Bottom line from your piece:
Without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, EACH PERSON essentially is the decider of what right and wrong is. Each person becomes the ultimate authority (ie God) of their own moral universe. It would be nice if you were never wrong eh?
Further, without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, there is no single benchmark that all measure their moral codes against. There are no effective absolutes, and morals become nothing practically more than personal preferences. Even if a bunch of people agree on certain things, and maybe even so strongly that they feel laws need to be passed to ensure (fill in the blank), it still is about personal preferences of a bunch of like minded people.
Without a religious foundation behind a person’s moral code, people can have a very well-defined moral code, and have a lot of different moral beliefs, but that clearly does not mean these people are good people or are ‘doing the right thing.’ This can even happen with people who follow certain religions as well. Based on your parameters, ‘moral’ and ‘right’ are not the same thing. Socialists and communists had morals and followed them, and yet almost nobody holds them up as being ‘morally right’ or examples of ‘good people’. The Islamic suicide bombers live by a moral code but they are not morally right or doing good things.
Morality does not exist without God.
Before hopping in the boat with a one-armed-boat-rower (flip side of the same coin) one may want to read this first:)
“..it is much more difficult to do battle with a weak mind than a strong one.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846016/posts?page=78#78
Wh do so many rationalists assume a pose of intellectual superiority when in fact they lose the argument every time?
Socialism always ends in economic laziness and ruin, because it is based on the false economic/political premise that social ends can be achieved by forcing individuals to obey group goals.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
The premise that a groups "bigger" goal can be gained by treating an unwilling neighbor as a scofflaw makes no sense at all.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed.
Good cite.
I've been posting Koestlers brilliant words about fanatics/socialists for years now on FR:
"- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation. We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. -"
-Arthur Koestler-
Thanks.
Socialism would work if everyone desperately wanted it to. But that's not reality, and that is my point, which it appears you missed
Oops, I just noticed that I'm posting to "tpaine". Of course you missed my point. Never mind.
Since “morality” by defintion means submission to the decrees of the Creator, you’re making an ass of yourself.
- socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin. But it always ends that way.
Socialism always ends in economic laziness and ruin, because it is based on the false economic/political premise that social ends can be achieved by forcing individuals to obey group goals.
Socialism would work if everyone desperately wanted it to.
Bold point. Coupled with your previous line we get: Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to.
Quite the marxist type statement, no?
But that's not reality, and that is my point,
Your point is "not reality"? Amusingly ~cool~ psychobabble.
And, - "desperately wanting" a flawed premise to work is indeed a rejection of reality.
which it appears you missed Oops, I just noticed that I'm posting to "tpaine". Of course you missed my point. Never mind.
And of course, in trying to be 'cool', you missed mine. How typical.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
The premise that a groups "bigger" goal can be gained by treating an unwilling neighbor as a scofflaw makes no sense at all.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed.
Naturally, you've ignored my points about our constitution. Why is that?
Your inability to understand simple posts and their context is not my problem.
However, your insistence on advertising your deficiencies is annoying. Or perhaps you are just smarting so badly from the humiliation that you’ve suffered on numerous threads that you are grasping at anything to pump your ego.
You’re adding nothing as usual. Go away.
Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
I replied:
The premise that a groups "bigger" goal can be gained by treating an unwilling neighbor as a scofflaw makes no sense at all.
Mine was a comparative statement clearly showing that reality cannot be ignored, despite the best of theories.
And clearly, the 'best of theories' include those above about socialism. - Which I countered.
All in correlation to the subject of the thread (religion free morality).
Exactly my point also. -- We have a religion free moral system in place in the USA. It's called our Constitution. Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed.
Naturally, you've ignored those points about our constitution. Why is that?
Your inability to understand simple posts and their context is not my problem. However, your insistence on advertising your deficiencies is annoying. Or perhaps you are just smarting so badly from the humiliation that you've suffered on numerous threads that you are grasping at anything to pump your ego.You're adding nothing as usual. Go away.
Typical, - instead of engaging on the issue, you make personal remarks in an effort to avoid defending your socialistic agitprop from criticism.
Thanks for posting this thought provoking article Stolyarov.
I think it, and it’s responses, provide some excellent insights. I’m going to post some brief responses to some of the bits I find most intriguing.
First of all, you are absolutely correct that morality (or rather ‘moral’ behaviour in the general sense) is not dependant entirely upon ‘religion’. There are ‘good’ people everywhere and among every socio-cultural group. Yet from a Christian perspective, ‘good’ is entirely dependant upon obedience to an unchanging God, and from this perspective, none of us are ‘good’, since we all fall of His glory.
A person that accepts Christ as his Lord makes the commitment to turn from following his own path and decisions, and turns toward God for leadership of his life.
From a Christian perspective, true ‘morality’ can thus only come from acceptance of Christ, because if he is real and who he claims to be, then only He is able to determine what is truly Good. This does not mean that a person cannot be ‘moral’ in the judgement of his peers, but rather that that ‘morality’ is not the same as that discussed by Christians.
“(Moral) conduct can be summarized, roughly but comprehensively, by the exhortation, ‘Live and let live,’ with the caveat, ‘unless the other person does not let you live.’”
Yet ‘moral’ conduct for a follower of Christ is not this, and this is part of the dilemna. To be ‘moral’ in a Christian sense is to love God with all my heart, all my soul, and all my mind, and to truly love my fellow man. Love in this context does not mean to merely ‘let live’, but to keep no record of wrongs, to forgive them, to build the other person up, and to seek after their ‘good’.
None of us live up to this perfect standard of love, but because we love and serve a God who is Holy, we continually strive to allow him to change us, and to make us holy.
“The assertions of Christians that Christianity has made them more moral can seldom be disputed; many individual Christians can offer ample and firm evidence for ways in which their religion has enhanced their virtue.”
If you were to talk to these people, I think you would find that most will credit the change not to their own actions/strength, but to the influence of a living and loving Spirit of God acting upon them. This is not merely a semantic distinction. There is power in the name of Christ, and that power is simply evidence to his claim of who he is.
He Is.
“And socialism doesn’t have to result in economic laziness and ruin. But it always ends that way.”
I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I’m aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist, and reflects a blurring of Christianity with Capitalism/America.
Before we critique socialisn though, we should remember that in the book of Acts, “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” (Acts 2:44-45). Karl Marx had a background in Christian schools if I recall correctly, and his mistake perhaps lies in trying to enact some of Christ’s teachings separated from their totality, and more importantly, separate from Christ.
Which is closer to scriptural teaching? To provide and share what we have with all people, or to seek after our own wealth and benefit?
I might also add that most other countries in the world would be considered socialist by American standards, and as China in particular demonstrates, they are not in economic ruin.
'- Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.
Socialism doesn't have to result in economic laziness and ruin, - it would work if everyone desperately wanted it to. -'
I find this comment interesting, since it implies (without evidence that I'm aware of) that Stolyarov is somehow socialist,
On the contrary, - as we see by the reversal, - the author is attempting to justify a socialist POV; - that our golden rule "only makes sense" when used in a communal way, when "there is something bigger to consider than number one."
and reflects a blurring of Christianity with Capitalism/America.
Before we critique socialism though, we should remember that in the book of Acts, - All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. - (Acts 2:44-45). Karl Marx had a background in Christian schools if I recall correctly, and his mistake perhaps lies in trying to enact some of Christ's teachings separated from their totality, and more importantly, separate from Christ.
Which is closer to scriptural teaching? To provide and share what we have with all people, or to seek after our own wealth and benefit?
Constitutionally speaking, after seeing to your own wealth and benefit, nothing prevents you from providing and sharing with all people. -
- However, forced sharing of "what we have" is not permissible.
I might also add that most other countries in the world would be considered socialist by American standards, and as China in particular demonstrates, they are not in economic ruin.
China is not in economic ruin because the are rapidly adopting a non-socialist "Capitalism/America" style business system. - Unfortunately, individual rights are not a part of their system.
Until then I'm foregoing reading your posts, let alone treating them as if they merit a reply.
True. However, only because God has placed the natural law into each man’s heart. Once natural law is abandoned, as it has been, then man is without a moral compass. This is the beginning of relativism. Once relativism is rooted, buh-bye morality. Your only hope then is a good old fashioned revival.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.