Libertarian pushing morality?

[Diogenes]

Ironically, I just watched the new Alice this evening with the kids. Beware the Jabberwock my son.

[Diogenes]

Have you witnessed what happens when people decide what is moral?

The bible was also written by people.

So are physics text books, the point being that they represent the summation of knowledge at the point they are written.

The bible (and other sacred texts) represent the summation of knowledge regarding the civil affairs of humans known up to that time. It includes examples of how not to behave (and why) and what the consequences are in terms of past experience.

As I have repeated, Religion in general is the summation of lessons learned by hard experience, often at the expense of blood shed. These lessons should not be taken lightly even though they are related amongst the trappings of supernatural beings and events.

To illustrate my point, i'll relate to you the story of a cursed valley here in America.

When the west was being settled, there was a certain valley near the rocky mountains that the Indians said was cursed. It was full of evil spirits, and that people who went there would be possessed by a spirit and die.

The whites disregarded these old Indian superstitions and would go through this valley because it represented a short cut along their way. Strangely enough, they would sicken and die. Eventually people started taking the Indian warnings of "spirits" seriously.

Years later, it was discovered by scientists that the ticks which infested that valley carried a particularly virulent pathogen, and anyone bitten by one of these ticks would become deathly ill and often die.


The point is, the lesson was valid, even though the spiritual explanation was not.

[Diogenes]

Have you witnessed what happens when people decide what is moral?

The bible was also written by people.

But I digress. Compare two societies, one that lives by strict Biblical principles (if such a nation ever did exist, instead, just take the closest we can find), and the other that lives by the teachings of secular humanism, things like eugenics, the perfecting of the human being, etc.

I point this out often. As bad as people claiming to be Christians have behaved throughout the centuries, the people claiming to be athiests (or pagans) are FAR WORSE!

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc.

[Diogenes]

Not that I want to turn this into a debate on this

indeed so....

but the Bible is divinely inspired, with plenty of evidence to back that up (like multiple authors separated by tens of generations, vast geographical distances, and being unaware of each other, all being written as if a single mind assembled the principles

I can't think of a book that more poorly exemplifies 'internal consistency' than the bible.

...and that's even after various people over time have taken the opportunity to dump various chapters from it that did not go with the main theme [whatever that is!].

But there again, maybe you have a point because we can see that all religious works teach a clear message of consistency: This can be seen by counting how few denominations there are in major religions, and how harmonious they are between them. Most of the major religions only have one unified denomination and they never argue over the meaning of their religious texts.......

What a load of old codswallop.....

You seem to be swayed by a divine inspiration to read something more than is actually written into the bible. That's your problem to live with. If the underlying text was, indeed, laid down by a super-being then it would have been in specific and incontrovertible literary style that no-one would be able to re-interpret and re-re-interpret what it is all meant to mean - it'd mean the same thing to everyone. It doesn't, and therefore it makes no sense to argue it is underwritten by a super-being.

I would make the argument that the bible is relatively consistent with the tenets of other religions. It has been noted before (by anthropologists) that most religions have similar prohibitions and teachings. (i.e. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.)

There is sufficient overlap between various religions to indicate that this is not by chance. This leaves us to postulate that the commonality is the result of divine influence, OR it is the result of being derived in a similar manner for diverse peoples. (Human experience is the common denominator)

I have always argued that religion and morals are the distilled essence of past lessons learned, and that religion is the methodology used to transfer the lessons from the past into the present. Why use religion? Because it works.! It utilizes characteristics of human nature (the desire to believe in something beyond oneself) to convince people to behave in a manner that is evolutionarily beneficial. It is like an artificial guide star (in astronomy) or like a Santa Clause for adults. (You behave or Santa won't bring you any presents.)

It doesn't have to be real to produce real results. As in politics, it doesn't matter what the truth is, it only matters what people BELIEVE the truth is.

[Diogenes]

By your standards, name me a society that follows christian principles, please. I dont know one. Maybe the Vatican (but that is catholizism then, which some christians argue is not really christian either).
I am sure you are referring to the US, but really how much is this country following "christian principles"? How much has it ever followed "christian principles".
Exactly what christian principles are you referring to anyway?
Some people may call many of the christian principles (share your wealth with the community, love your neighbour, treat everybody equal, etc) quite socialist, at least to some extent.
So really, what does your christian society look like? I have not seen one, really.

The US does not follow Christian principles much anymore. They went out (more or less) with the 60s. You know, that spoiled rotten generation of ego-centric youths tutored by covert communists in the Universities. Prior to that time, the US was far more guided by Christian principles than it is today. As for your contention that "share the wealth" is a Christian principle, I would advise you that is nothing but socialistic propaganda. Christianity teaches you to help those in need, but it does not say that they should receive an equal share with those who work hard.

Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

[chrismb]

It has been noted before (by anthropologists) that most religions have similar prohibitions and teachings. (i.e. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.)

There is sufficient overlap between various religions to indicate that this is not by chance. This leaves us to postulate that the commonality is the result of divine influence

Absolutely. I mean, it would never have occurred to a secular society that stealing and killing might be bad for that society.(!!!)

Why use religion?

..because about 98% of the population need dogma to follow. That is why [one is left to presume] congregations are called 'sheep' in Christian tradition. It is a kinda 'in-ya-face' see-if-they-spot-it pejorative.

But I support Christianity. I would even preach Christianity to those 98% for whom it does work, because without them observing such behaviours then society wouldn't work out so well. As for countries that do actually exhibit sound Christian ethos, I would say that well-describes the protestant northern-european cultures quite well; northern Germany, Denmark and the Scandinavian states. That protestant Christianity is now manifest as "socialism [Scandinavian-style]" and from my experience of it, it works out very well. They strike me as very caring societies - though you may have to wait a good while before they get personally comfortable ["huggelig"] and familiar with you.

[Skipjack]

The US does not follow Christian principles much anymore.

When did it ever?

[Diogenes]

It has been noted before (by anthropologists) that most religions have similar prohibitions and teachings. (i.e. thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc.)

There is sufficient overlap between various religions to indicate that this is not by chance. This leaves us to postulate that the commonality is the result of divine influence

Absolutely. I mean, it would never have occurred to a secular society that stealing and killing might be bad for that society.(!!!).

Not always. Sometimes, As Clint Eastwood said: "He needed killin."


Societies that didn't respect a universal right to life existed and were quite successful to some extent. The Egyptians, the Aztecs, the Romans, etc.

Why use religion?

..because about 98% of the population need dogma to follow. That is why [one is left to presume] congregations are called 'sheep' in Christian tradition. It is a kinda 'in-ya-face' see-if-they-spot-it pejorative.

But I support Christianity. I would even preach Christianity to those 98% for whom it does work, because without them observing such behaviours then society wouldn't work out so well.

Exactly! It is necessary for Atheists to have a society full of Christians (or something similar) in order for them to be indulged in their non-belief. It has nothing to do with what the actual truth is, (as to whether or not their is a God) it has to do with whether or not a society can agree upon a set of rules for their behavior which happens to be beneficial for everyone. Religion serves that purpose, even if it is dogma.

As for countries that do actually exhibit sound Christian ethos, I would say that well-describes the protestant northern-european cultures quite well; northern Germany, Denmark and the Scandinavian states. That protestant Christianity is now manifest as "socialism [Scandinavian-style]" and from my experience of it, it works out very well. They strike me as very caring societies - though you may have to wait a good while before they get personally comfortable ["huggelig"] and familiar with you.

I've heard of some Protestant denominations that advocate socialism, but most of the examples i've heard about tend to be Catholic. As examples, I'll mention people like Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedy clan, Joe Biden, etc. The Catholic church seems to be dealing currently with a dichotomy of purpose between it's conservative and liberal members.

In any case, I think much of the Scandinavian tendency toward socialism has more to do with attitudes engendered through homogeneity than religion. I've noticed that Liberalism seems to be stronger in the colder climates than it is elsewhere.

The Fallacy of socialism is that it attempts to apply the natural collectivist nature of a family to diverse people who are unrelated. I think this is easier to accomplish when the citizens of a nation ARE more closely related, and observably so. People are more willing to do for their cousins what they will not do for strangers. Once that mindset is established, THEN it can be applied to others, provided the numbers of "others" don't get too high.

[Diogenes]

The US does not follow Christian principles much anymore.

When did it ever?

Most of it's existence, but not all of the principles, nor all of the time, nor in all parts at the same time.

As I have pointed out before, sometimes the best you can do is to try.

[Skipjack]

To get back to the Christian principles.
If you read the apostel history by Lukas 4,32 until 5.11.
Personally I dont even call that socialism anymore, it is outright communism.
The catholic church still lives this, btw. Everything belongs to the church. Their priests own nothing (well nowadays they do own a few items, but nothing of great value). In return the church cares for them.
Of course the church also has income through taxes and donations from hundreds of millions of believers...
In any case, I dont see any capitalist values there. Do you?

[mdeminico]

By your standards, name me a society that follows christian principles, please. I dont know one. Maybe the Vatican (but that is catholizism then, which some christians argue is not really christian either).
I am sure you are referring to the US, but really how much is this country following "christian principles"? How much has it ever followed "christian principles".
Exactly what christian principles are you referring to anyway?
Some people may call many of the christian principles (share your wealth with the community, love your neighbour, treat everybody equal, etc) quite socialist, at least to some extent.
So really, what does your christian society look like? I have not seen one, really.

Take a stroll around Washington DC and look at the engravings on the buildings. Read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Then tell me the entire basis of our society isn't Judeo-Christian principles.

[mdeminico]

The US does not follow Christian principles much anymore. They went out (more or less) with the 60s. You know, that spoiled rotten generation of ego-centric youths tutored by covert communists in the Universities. Prior to that time, the US was far more guided by Christian principles than it is today. As for your contention that "share the wealth" is a Christian principle, I would advise you that is nothing but socialistic propaganda. Christianity teaches you to help those in need, but it does not say that they should receive an equal share with those who work hard.

Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

Thanks, saved me the time of writing that explanation

Christian principles involve justice, along with compassion. If someone is truly suffering and they've done all they can to stand on their own, we should help them. But you cannot honestly tell me that when ONE IN SIX Americans out there are on Food Stamps, that anything but a small percentage of those have done all they could to stand on their own.

Justice does NOT involve stealing other people's money without their consent and giving it to other people. That's stealing.

[mdeminico]

To get back to the Christian principles.
If you read the apostel history by Lukas 4,32 until 5.11.
Personally I dont even call that socialism anymore, it is outright communism.
The catholic church still lives this, btw. Everything belongs to the church. Their priests own nothing (well nowadays they do own a few items, but nothing of great value). In return the church cares for them.
Of course the church also has income through taxes and donations from hundreds of millions of believers...
In any case, I dont see any capitalist values there. Do you?

That is for members of the church, at a time when the church went through probably 100,000% or more growth. It was a specific time in Church history. Nowhere in there is a command to continue for the church members (let alone force other people in the society) to give all of their possessions to the church (and especially not to any other central organization).

Not only that, but every single person in that time was, as we Christians say, filled with the holy spirit, and were working to their utmost ability in order to work towards a common goal. They weren't slacking off, they weren't holding back, they were doing their best. That's the only way a communal system can work, because it takes the best of Free Enterprise (hard work to the best of one's ability) with the best of Communism (not having to worry about providing each individual need you have). This was ONLY possible one time in history, and you read about it in the book of Acts. It might happen for very short periods elsewhere, but it never lasts, just as it was not meant to last for the Church as was detailed in Acts.

[Skipjack]

Take a stroll around Washington DC and look at the engravings on the buildings. Read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. Read the writings of the founding fathers. Then tell me the entire basis of our society isn't Judeo-Christian principles.

Why, just because the word "god" is mentioned a couple of times?
That does not mean anything.
All emperors in Christian Europe were crowned by the pope. They claimed to be emperors by gods divine choice, blah, blah. They even fought wars for their version of Christianity (catholic versus protestant). They sloughterd thousands of those adhering to the wrong version and starved many more to death. They had their god given right to rule whatever part of the world written in many papers and on many inscriptions. All of that did not make their ruling any more divine, did it?

Nowhere in there is a command to continue for the church members (let alone force other people in the society) to give all of their possessions to the church (and especially not to any other central organization).

Did you actually read chapter 5? Yes? What happened to Hananias and Saphira when they did not want to share all their money that they got for their land with the church?

This was ONLY possible one time in history, and you read about it in the book of Acts.

The catholic church, as an institution is still working this way up to this day. Their priests own nothing (nowadays they possess a few personal items), everything belongs to the church and after their death even the few things that they owned go into the possession of the church.

[KitemanSA]

Did you actually read chapter 5? Yes? What happened to Hananias and Saphira when they did not want to share all their money that they got for their land with the church?

I read that as them LYING about their donation, SAYING they provided all the money while holding some back. That is at least fraud, perhaps even stealing. Seems it is not healthy to defraud or steal from God! If Saphira had said that her husband had withheld some money, would she have been able to keep it? I guess it might depend on what level of "membership" in the community she sought.