Religion and Ethics 2.0

[Mike Dwight]

Lorena.Anagram of Lanore. "The Raven" devilish Romance poem often quoted again for Listen to the Mockingbird or Lorena.
The years creep slowly by, Lorena
The snow is on the grass a gain
The sun's low down the sky, Lorena
The frost gleams where the flowers have been //Slow letter introduction. Time physically moves though the author's heart doesn't.
But my heart beats on as warmly now
As when the summer days were nigh
The sun can never dip so low
Or down affections cloudless sky //The cloud of Affection however is cloudless.
A hundred months have passed, Lorena
//10 years past a declined courting. This poem in gentlemanly fashion helps follow up reputations only. No desperation or stalking is recognizable from the author, during a family affair Courting timeperiod.

Since last I held that hand in mine
And felt the pulse beat fast, Lorena
Though mine beat faster far than thine
A hundred months, 'twas flowery may
When up the hilly slope we climbed
To watch the dying of the day //They were both heading metaphorically toward Church when there was a rejection through responsibility on the woman's part.
And hear the distant church bells chime
We loved each other then, Lorena
More than we ever dared to tell
And what we might have been, Lorena //At least one party expressed love
Had but our loving prospered well
But then, 'tis past, the years are gone
I'll not call up their shadowy forms
I'll say to them, lost years, sleep on //Rejection is not any Christian reason for vengence or against mercy
Sleep on, nor heed life's pelting storms
The story of that past, Lorena
Alas I care not to repeat
The hopes that could not last, Lorena
They lived, but only lived to cheat
I would not cause them one regret //The woman rejected for better family welfare historically, in real life
To rankle in your bosom now
For if we try, we may forget
Were words of thine long years ago
Yes, these were words of thine, Lorena
They burn within my memory yet
They touched some tender chords, Lorena
Which thrill and tremble with regret
'Twas not thy woman's heart that spoke //Women were expected to perform Dutiful Rejections as well, I presume
Thy heart was always true to me
A duty, stern and pressing, broke
The tie which linked my soul with thee
It matters little now, Lorena
The past is in the eternal past
Our heads will soon lie low, Lorena //Funerals presumably, in which Christ did say to Love one another and everyone, especially those who do not love you, always.
Life's tide is ebbing out so fast
There is a future, o, thank God
Of life this is so small a part
'Tis dust to dust beneath the sod
But there, up there, 'tis heart to heart //The Peace of a New Kingdom

 

[task0778]

"That's something that's natural to us and to all species. We all know what is right and good."

Do we? All of us? I'm thinking what's right and good in your book might not be the case in someone else's. And BTW, I doubt if there's another species on this planet that thinks or knows about what is right and good.

I am not sure that knowing what is right and good actually is natural to us, seems to me that is somewhat up for debate. A baby isn't born with that knowledge, he or she learns it from their family and society as they grow up, no? And most of that is ingrained in us based on what we were taught in church or Sunday School, as it also was for our parents, grandparents, perhaps a long way back in time. Religion has been around for a very long time, and much of the morality that we all learn from the cradle has as its basis what was learned and passed down via religion.

Which doesn't mean a person can't be morally and ethically right and good, without being religious. But I'd say in most cases a non-religious person has already been influenced by religion to some degree, like it or not. By what standard does a non-religious person decide what is right and good and what isn't? Science is good at telling is how things work, but not so good at the decisions for right and good. Especially when it comes to human interaction and relationships.

 

[RWS]

We're the only ones who kill each other over an imaginary being.

Whether you're right and the others are wrong, we're still the only ones who do that.

Animals don't do that. Neither do birds or fish. Or bacteria... Just us.

We love to kill each other over imagination. And religious rulers have captured that need, and used it to create great wealth and power.

To the detriment of humanity.

 

[RWS]

Faith is something that is obvious to all. It's a natural observation and personal explanation of the world that we can all see.

Religions are imaginary beliefs that are hammered into us from birth, with the penalty of death and suffering if we don't follow, so that religious leaders can profit and gain power, and create armies to further exploit their power and wealth.

Big difference.

 

[RWS]

Back to the op.... What this is all about...

Faith has ethics.

Religions do not have ethics. At least not the trilogy ones.

Religion and Ethics are two separate topics. And we're trying to argue both topics in one forum topic. No wonder nobody has figured it all out yet!

 

[ding]

Thus proving that militant atheists are delusional and emotional.

 

[task0778]

"We love to kill each other over imagination."

This is bullshit, either you know it and are just trying to stir people up or you don't know it and are a fool. And I am not discounting the possibility that you are both trying to mess with people and are a fool. To say religious people love to kill others or that they do it for fun is an outrageous thing to say that I believe is purposely antagonistic and provoking.

"Religions are imaginary beliefs that are hammered into us from birth, with the penalty of death and suffering if we don't follow"

Most religions do not preach the penalty of death and suffering if we don't follow. What you did is take the one and only religion tht you know about and project your opinion of that religion to all the rest.

"Religions do not have ethics. At least not the trilogy ones."

What is a trilogy ethic, don't know what theat means. But yes, religions do have ethics. Many people believe that ethics could be a direct result of religion, or at least amplified by it. Religions are human institutions that may or may not have been divinely inspired, but nonetheless are run by human beings and therefore subject to the same weaknesses, mistakes, errors, etc., as everyone else.

"Religion and Ethics are two separate topics. And we're trying to argue both topics in one forum topic. No wonder nobody has figured it all out yet!"

It is possible that it is you who hasn't figured it all out yet, and a lot of other people have. There are an awful lot of people in this world whose ethics are bound up with their religion, and they do good things as a result. Yes, a few do bad things too, but they are vastly outnumbered. Human nature being what it is, not even people in any church are perfect, but it is senseless to project their misdeeds on everyone else.

Annnd I'm done with this thread. I've said what I need to say, and it's time to move on.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Hmmm. One such religion like Christianity, has many Social constructs. Is that Culture? Is that Religion and ethics? People make a line. I don't know if its real. They have the 10 commandments. How many have thought of no Easter, No Christmas or Thanksgiving? What about societies without Marriage or are now Pretending to have any tradition of the sanctimony of marriage? Have you been to a Rite of Marriage? Many nations who take pride in these Associations and therefore being international, do take armed offense to revolutionaries who have fully decided to be rid of those associations to this world. Think of the Russians in the White Army Christian rebel offensive , in favor of the Emperor, who Stravinsky would be closely aware of these occurrences when he imagines, totally out of character, totally avante garde, the Pre Christian times of the Rus', a Tribe, in the winter wilderness, Without Christian traditions, in some tiny forest near Lithuania in the 1000 AD. So no, Christian will not be obvious in an outfit, a richness, or even a demeanor.

 

[RWS]

 

[RWS]

We can all be equal if you let it.

 

[emilynghiem]

We're the only ones who kill each other over an imaginary being.

Whether you're right and the others are wrong, we're still the only ones who do that.

Animals don't do that. Neither do birds or fish. Or bacteria... Just us.

We love to kill each other over imagination. And religious rulers have captured that need, and used it to create great wealth and power.

To the detriment of humanity.

Dear RWS
People also lay down their lives for others
because of some "imagined" greater good will.

I remember reading stories from 9/11 where a person was too injured and was going to get left behind in a stairwell.
One of the people escaping stayed back with that person. Refused to leave because that person would have died alone.
What does that tell us?
That person felt it was more important for the other person to know they are valued beyond life and death.
It was more important to stay, knowing they would both likely die.
Can you imagine being the family member of the person who stayed to die,
rather than escape with the rest, because it wasn't conscionable to them to leave someone to die alone. Can you imagine.

What in a person's conscience drives them to value the love of a person,
the need for that person to know they are loved and matter,
more than material life and death?

What in our conscience tells us it's more important to live and love for lovesake
above and beyond the material instinct for physical survival.
That's also faith based, and should be included when you are counting the negatives.

Sure RWS you can point out all the evil done in the name of
"mob mentality" (which you are basically blaming on "religion and faith in God").
But when you look at the selfless uplifting acts of charity and good faith
done for lovesake, for faith in humanity and caring for others,
it either comes out "even" or LOVE comes out ahead.

People weigh the acts of love and the loving memories
MORE than the painful injuries and wrongs we suffer in life as well.

I've read stories after stories about people losing loved one such as after mass shootings,
and as horrible the horror and loss, these survivors will report that the "outpouring" of
support from community and even strangers will somehow uplift their hearts and minds.

Mathematically, logically this makes no sense to the human mind.
How can a simple word or gesture by others POSSIBLY outweigh the grief and angst they are going through?

But somehow our conscience is designed to respond to love.
RWS perhaps you are more the realist and practical thinker
who sees things as objective and weighs things black and white.

Good luck trying to measure the impact and value of love on a scale.
You can measure the evil acts in terms of severity of horrors, tortures and killings
which you can count by the number of victims.

But measuring the impact on someone of a single act of charity,
the memory of something as simple as making someone laugh at a horrible time,
I don't think that makes sense on the same scale you are trying to apply.

From my experiences, and what I hear from others,
the love of good outweighs the bad.
Love of peace and justice outweigh war and injustice no matter how horrible.

Whatever you weigh on the negative side of the scales,
when you consider things in totality, the good on the other side weighs more.
Maybe it's human irrationality, a survival trait to look at life this way.

But if you are trying to assess the damage or value of religion,
I don't see how you can come to any conclusion the bad outweighs the good.
Either they break even, or the good is greater, and that's why people
don't give up on truth, don't give up on justice and love.

Evil and ill will are NOT sustainable but drain on people until they are forced into change.

Love and good will tend to replicate and reciprocate, so they grow
by investing positive energy to remove and replace bad things from the past
and working toward a better future.

That's human nature. And all religions try to capture and teach
both the negatives and the positives, so we can learn the difference
and choose the direction that yields the better results by comparison.

 

[emilynghiem]

We can all be equal if you let it.

^ Sure RWS such as if you do not impose YOUR belief
that religions exclude ethics. How can you proclaim this
where it automatically makes your viewpoint unequal with
the beliefs of others? You are basically saying those other
viewspoints are INVALID, thus yours is more valid than others
which are "false" to you. Therefore, you and they are not equal!

HOWEVER RWS if what you mean by equal
is that your belief is EQUAL to the beliefs of others,
then yes, we can call be equally included with our own beliefs.

So why argue so much against other people?
If our beliefs are all equal, then they are not in conflict
or competition with each other. You should not feel
any need to defend your viewpoint if others' are equally valid!

 

[emilynghiem]

Religions do not have ethics. At least not the trilogy ones.

Religion and Ethics are two separate topics.

And we're trying to argue both topics in one forum topic. No wonder nobody has figured it all out yet!

1. All religions contain ethics and ALL RELIGIONS CONTAIN TRILOGY or TRINITY concepts.
Examples:
Buddhism - Buddha Dharma Sangha
Taoism - Body Mind Spirit
Confucianism - Jen Yi Li
Constitutionalism - Judicial Legislative Executive

I listed twice previously the ETHICS principle of EQUAL JUSTICE or Natural laws/Golden Rule of RECIPROCITY.
This is in ALL religions.
Do you recognize this pattern is in human nature, and that's
why any system humans use to describe laws of relations and justice
contain the same patterns?

2. RE: "Religion and Ethics are two separate topics"

Why are you framing this as a conflict?
I see more reasons why these two go together.

To understand the true meaning in religions, you'd have to apply reason
by also LOOKING at the ethics. Like faith requires reason to make sure it is not falsely misguided.

If you are so against religious abuse that you want to REMOVE ethics from religion,
doesn't that make the situation worse?

Wouldn't it make more sense to INCLUDE ethics IN RELIGION to prevent misguided abuses?

Also RWS do you consider Catholic church history:
previously they considered the GREEK ETHICS to be "outside their theology and not from God"
But after studying the works of Aristotle, Aquinas RECONCILED and found that the secular ethics
was CONSISTENT with morals taught by the church. So they changed and INCLUDED classic
teaching of Greek philosophy in education as a way to UNDERSTAND human nature and universal laws.

Why would you want to DIVORCE ethics from religion?
Especially if you are so against irrational abuses?

 

[RWS]

Emily, please stop scolding me?

I like you very much, and I'm not going to argue with you! I think you are ethical. But I do not think the same about most of the others that share your religion and/or follow other trilogy religions. And if you respect me, as much as I respect you, you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

And what I'm trying to say, is that very many people hide behind their religion so as not to expose their ethics.

People can hide racism and bigotry, and even child abuse as long as they keep preaching Christianity. That's just one example. Then we have Orthodox Muslims, and Jews (Borat joke).

All three religions tells people that it's ok to fuck everyone else. Even though it violates ethics.

Religion and ethics are two different things!

 

[RWS]

As an Atheist, I have very strict ethics. And they are for the good of humanity. Regardless of religion.

I'm about science and truth, and setting the record straight.

 

[RWS]

 

[ding]

Religion and ethics are two different things!

Thats certainly true for the religion of militant atheism.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, please stop scolding me?

I like you very much, and I'm not going to argue with you! I think you are ethical. But I do not think the same about most of the others that share your religion and/or follow other trilogy religions. And if you respect me, as much as I respect you, you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

And what I'm trying to say, is that very many people hide behind their religion so as not to expose their ethics.

People can hide racism and bigotry, and even child abuse as long as they keep preaching Christianity. That's just one example. Then we have Orthodox Muslims, and Jews (Borat joke).

All three religions tells people that it's ok to fuck everyone else. Even though it violates ethics.

Religion and ethics are two different things!

Hi RWS
1. Not trying to scold you. Sorry for giving this impression not intended at all.
2. Why make generalized statements then if they don't apply to all people of all religions?
Can you be more specific then if you are saying there is SOME approach that doesn't contradict ethics.
I don't understand why you insist on making a generalization blaming all religions.

I just realized you, yourself, are "arguing TWO DIFFERENT THINGS"
and that's why this is so confusing or conflicted

A. First you are trying to argue that Religion and Ethics should be
separate and not addressed on one thread because they are two separate things.

I think they can be two approaches and still belong in the same area where anyone can discuss either one.
Like "Political beliefs and arguments" could be two separate things and still be discussed in the same areas.
"Cats and Dogs" can be two separate animals and still be in the same general topic of animals.

Would you prefer "Religion, Morals and Ethics"
"Religion and Philosophy"
What would allow both "secular/nontheist" and
"religious denominations" to share and post about
both morals, beliefs and ethics?

B. Secondly you are trying to say Religions promote killing.

Isn't THAT a SEPARATE discussion?

RWS if these were inseparable, we couldn't discuss your issue with
Religions promoting killing WITHOUT addressing the title "Religion and Ethics" or how to change it.
And likewise, if these were "inseparable" we couldn't address changing
the title of "Religion and Ethics" without also addressing statements that Religions equate with promoting killing.

C. My conclusion is RWS you seem to contradict yourself
and that's why I'm asking for CLARIFICATION

1. If you YOURSELF are DISCUSSING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS
IN THE SAME THREAD, how are you complaining about two
different things discussed in the same forum or subforum?

2. If your issue is changing the title, then why not discuss that?
Why not discuss what it should be changed to.
I gave some examples:
"Religion and Philosophy"
"Religion, Morals and Ethics"
Do you prefer something else, what do you suggest?

RWS which issue are you trying to address here?
I'll gladly stick to that but it appears to be more than one.
Please specify! Thank you!
Not trying to scold you, I just need clarification
so I don't address something you are not saying.

 

[emilynghiem]

And then the priests molest the boys and girls for years, and the higher ups just ignore it.

Yeah, "God/Jesus" is watching over us and the Vatican. Sorry, but that's bs

Sorry RWS but this is a different topic.
This is why I'm confused as to which you
are REALLY trying to address.

To show I'm NOT trying to "scold" you I'm going
back and trying to given thanks to you for posting
questions for discussion I believe are important
and the REASON FOR THIS FORUM.

Of course we need to discuss both the moral
meanings and ethics between religions as well
as secular systems people might use who are not religious.

We would not be having this discussion HERE
if religion and ethics weren't tied together.

So thank you for bringing up this discussion which is
the BEST way I can see coming to terms with the
MEANINGS behind religions, what they mean and
what they should not mean.

I don't mean to give the wrong impression of scolding you or anyone here.

But when you declare and blame "all religions" because of
killing or molestation, YOU come across as scolding collectively.

Do you understand the Golden Rule that if you
come across as scolding then other people react to you the same way?

I wasn't even trying to do that, but I was seeking CLARIFICATION.
Can you please help me out RWS

I think it's a CRITICAL KEY STEP to discuss both
Ethics and Morals in order to question and understand what religions
should mean or should teach.

So for all the objections you cite,
you seem to answer your own question RWS

No scolding needed or intended!
Thank you,
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[emilynghiem]

That got boo's.
Here's a better worst national anthem rendition:

Borat video

As for making a statement by an Atheist,
I like Tim Minchin's plea why isn't the natural beauty in the world ENOUGH
why is there any need to deify anything.
He says it in the context of a poem that is one of my favorite:



Spoiler Excerpt:
"Life is full of mysteries, yeah
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?'
'Let's sit here and hope.
Let's call up the fucking Pope.
Let's go watch Oprah interview Deepak Chopra.'

If you wanna watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool because every time there was a church with a ghoul or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the waterslide.
Because throughout history every mystery ever solved has turned out to be
Not Magic.

Does the idea that there might be knowledge frighten you?
Does the idea that one afternoon on Wiki-fucking-pedia might enlighten you frighten you?
Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural so blow your hippy noodle that you'd rather just stand in the fog of your inability to Google?

Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable, natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?
If you're so into your Shakespeare, lend me your ear:
"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw perfume on the violet... is just fucking silly"
Or something like that.
Or what about Satchmo?!
"I see trees of Green,
Red roses too,"
And fine, if you wish to glorify Krishna and Vishnu in a post-colonial, condescending bottled-up and labeled kind of way then whatever, that's ok.
But here's what gives me a hard-on:
I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant bit of carbon.
I have one life, and it is short and unimportant...
But thanks to recent scientific advances I get to live twice as long as my great great great great uncleses and auntses.
Twice as long to live this life of mine
Twice as long to love this wife of mine
Twice as many years of friends and wine
Of sharing curries and getting shitty at good-looking hippies with fairies on their spines and butterflies on their titties.

And if perchance I have offended
Think but this and all is mended:
We'd as well be 10 minutes back in time, for all the chance you'll change your mind.

Read more: Tim Minchin - Storm Lyrics | MetroLyrics