Is a belief in God necessary for morality - A new study

ignoramus americanus has always been the norm.... we had it easy....wipe out a population and manifest destiny we go coast to coast in a land that is not only beautiful, but fertile and underground contained minerals, water and oil...all of which we have exploited all of which are limited (the land expansion) so we are simply using up the larder provided...

I don't think we were ever significantly smarter than the rest of the world...just luckier.
 
I do not disagree with your comments completely. Historically we were never more smart or more stupid than other countries. HOWever, that cannot be said to be true today. Americans today, by and large, are incredibly more ignorant than any other modern industrialized nation.
 
just me said:
perhaps it is too objective for many, but many who also are truly Christians, who have a relationship with the Holy Spirit know without a doubt believe in their very souls and know God.
it is obvious that you have not found it yet.
The bible says many will not. Idon't believe we have the choice
I don.t know why, but God knows our hearts.
Click to expand...

Knowledge does not go hand-in-hand with belief. I mean, by faith. Paul agreed with that one by saying that Christians walk by faith and not by sight. To walk by sight is to know the way we walk through, while by faith is also to walk but without the need to know where to, how and why. (II Cor. 5:7)
 
Shibolet said:
Knowledge does not go hand-in-hand with belief.
Click to expand...
You can't believe in what you don't know.

Shibolet said:
Paul agreed with that one by saying that Christians walk by faith and not by sight.
Click to expand...

"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (Hebrews 11:10.)

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998. Opening statement.
 
Thomas said:
You can't believe in what you don't know.

"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (Hebrews 11:10.)

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Fides et Ratio, John Paul II, 1998. Opening statement.
Click to expand...

That's the option of the faithful: To believe what they don't know.

The evidence must be of the object and not of the subject. Hence, there can't be evidence of what does not appear to be.

Faith does not go along with Reason as faith is called for when there is no evidence.
 
Faith does not go along with Reason as faith is called for when there is no evidence.

Quite so. Which is why beliefs of faith should never be considered absolutes. Anyone willing to be honest about their faith should be able to acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong.
 
Shibolet said:
Faith does not go along with Reason as faith is called for when there is no evidence.
Click to expand...
Reason operates in the not-knowing as well.

Thus Faith – be in Abrahamic, Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever – is reasonable according to its axioms.

You don't have to accept that axioms, but that does not mean they are not reasonable, rational, logical, etc.

Just to get back to the point: A belief in God is not necessary for morality. It never was, even the religious traditions acknowledge that.
 
Gordian Knot said:
Faith does not go along with Reason as faith is called for when there is no evidence.

Quite so. Which is why beliefs of faith should never be considered absolutes. Anyone willing to be honest about their faith should be able to acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Possibility! Those who choose to believe by faith are always wrong. Remember what happened to the faithful of Jim Jones? Almost a thousand were poisoned to death for believing by faith. I blame Paul for that because he said that Christians must walk by faith and not by sight. (II Cor. 5:7) To walk by faith is to walk in the dark while by sight is to walk with understanding. I prefer to walk with understanding.
 
Thomas said:
Reason operates in the not-knowing as well.

Thus Faith – be in Abrahamic, Daoist, Buddhist, Hindu, whatever – is reasonable according to its axioms.

You don't have to accept that axioms, but that does not mean they are not reasonable, rational, logical, etc.

Just to get back to the point: A belief in God is not necessary for morality. It never was, even the religious traditions acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

What is necessary for Morality is the Law.
 
Shibolet said:
What is necessary for Morality is the Law.
Click to expand...

sorry to disagree with you people. Because once you find God you will have HIs nature and the law will be in your heart. Your desire for God,
is morality.
 
Shibolet said:
What is necessary for Morality is the Law.
Click to expand...
If you capitalise Morality and Law, then I wonder if you have a specific set of moral values and legal precepts in mind, or are you speaking of universals?

I would rather have thought what is necessary for morality is a sense of proportion.

Of course, for a Catholic like myself, the very word 'proportion' invokes the term 'Logos', as proportion is one of its meanings, so I would agree that all humanity considers morality and ethics because humanity is made in the Divine Image, and the Law is inscribed and enshrined on and in the heart, but that's Catholic me.

Certainly the Golden Rule is a universal (as is the concept of sacrifice) that cannot be claimed by anyone.

With regard to 'a sense of proportion', the old 'eye for an eye' of Exodus 21 was read, according to some commentaries, and by literalists today, as implying a 'law of retribution', other commentaries suggest a 'law of reparation', whether one favours the former or the latter depends, I suggest,on one's sense of proportion.
 
just me said:
sorry to disagree with you people. Because once you find God you will have HIs nature and the law will be in your heart. Your desire for God,
is morality.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between obeying the Law according to what is written or because it is in our heart if the Law is obeyed all the same? In either method, the point is that the Law is obeyed. The rest is verbal juggling of no sense.
 
Thomas said:
If you capitalise Morality and Law, then I wonder if you have a specific set of moral values and legal precepts in mind, or are you speaking of universals?

I would rather have thought what is necessary for morality is a sense of proportion.

Of course, for a Catholic like myself, the very word 'proportion' invokes the term 'Logos', as proportion is one of its meanings, so I would agree that all humanity considers morality and ethics because humanity is made in the Divine Image, and the Law is inscribed and enshrined on and in the heart, but that's Catholic me.

Certainly the Golden Rule is a universal (as is the concept of sacrifice) that cannot be claimed by anyone.

With regard to 'a sense of proportion', the old 'eye for an eye' of Exodus 21 was read, according to some commentaries, and by literalists today, as implying a 'law of retribution', other commentaries suggest a 'law of reparation', whether one favours the former or the latter depends, I suggest,on one's sense of proportion.
Click to expand...

I am speaking universals. What is the use for the Law to be inscribed in the heart if it is not observed as a fact? Jesus declared in Mat. 5:17-19 that he had come to confirm the Law down to the letter and not to hide it in the heart and break it at one's heart's content as Catholics used to do when they still had the power to kill through pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition and the Holocaust. That was a real breach done in the Golden Rule of not doing unto others what we would not like they did unto ourselves.

Now, regarding sacrifices, I don't understand how it has any thing to do with the issue. The concept of "an eye for an eye" is only to mean punishment through the law of cause and effect.
 
Shibolet said:
What is the difference between obeying the Law according to what is written or because it is in our heart if the Law is obeyed all the same? In either method, the point is that the Law is obeyed. The rest is verbal juggling of no sense.
Click to expand...

Scripture:
"Of ourselves we. Can do nothing"
I KNOW YOU DONT KNOw THE DIFFEERENCE

You will never. Find it being religious.
 
just me said:
Scripture:
"Of ourselves we. Can do nothing"
I KNOW YOU DONT KNOw THE DIFFEERENCE

You will never. Find it being religious.
Click to expand...

I am not religious. "Of ourselves, we can obey the Law." Man has been granted with the attribute of free will and even God does not intervene with that right, one has, to do whatever he or she pleases as long as we are aware of the consequences thereof as a result of the law of cause and effect.(Deut. 30:19)
 
Shibolet said:
I am not religious. "Of ourselves, we can obey the Law." Man has been granted with the attribute of free will and even God does not intervene with that right, one has, to do whatever he or she pleases as long as we are aware of the consequences thereof as a result of the law of cause and effect.(Deut. 30:19)
Click to expand...

Yes, and the. Consequences have been anger, emotional reactions drugs, smoking and the lack of morality, and the lack of a calm mind based on resentment.
All of these things are healed through the will of the creator.
 
just me said:
Yes, and the. Consequences have been anger, emotional reactions drugs, smoking and the lack of morality, and the lack of a calm mind based on resentment.
All of these things are healed through the will of the creator.
Click to expand...

We still have the power to choose what to do according to the attribute of free will. Now, with regards to healing according to the will of the Creator, what if the Creator chooses to heal some and not all? Will that make of Him a respecter of man? I think we must move in search of healing among those who have chosen to learn the art of healing. Didn't the Creator command His creation to grow and multiply? (Gen. 1:28)
 
Shibolet said:
We still have the power to choose what to do according to the attribute of free will. Now, with regards to healing according to the will of the Creator, what if the Creator chooses to heal some and not all? Will that make of Him a respecter of man? I think we must move in search of healing among those who have chosen to learn the art of healing. Didn't the Creator command His creation to grow and multiply? (Gen. 1:28)
Click to expand...

YOu have power in your imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top