[quote]Well...

I don't think there can be a 100% separation of Church and State, simply because many laws are based on some kind of morality. Without religion even hiding in a state's history, you don't have that solid foundation for the morality of the law. If ya get what I mean...[/quote]

DexX, I don't think morals can proceed from revealed truth. "Because God says so" is not a moral argument but an appeal to force. Now, I know you're not one of those hellfire and brimstone and smiting Christians, but still, even when we relative liberals try to derive rules of conduct from religion, we're basically saying "because God says so." (We are in special trouble when we try to use the Bible as a guide, as it idealizes a whole range of behaviors from genocide to self-sacrifice, but that's to do with the historic and cultural scope of the Bible, not religion in general.)

Now, if we're saying that God says so because it is right, and not the other way round, then we're talking about a morality outside of God, presumably discoverable, and we render God unnecessary to the argument.

Myself, I can't think of any basis for morality outside of human happiness. (Maybe I'd say animal happiness, or for a cosmic perspective, the happiness of all sentient creatures. Whatever.) To me, evil is defined simply as avoidable suffering. I think this is as sound a moral foundation for law as any based on revelation.

The main reason for separation of church and state, in my view, is that we should not invest sacred authority in a secular power. To do so is, in my view, both irrational and blasphemous-- bad democracy and bad theology. Washington is not my church, and Bush is not my priest. I'm sure you agree!

Ah, why can't I be as succinct as Tobor?

---
What others say about boorite!

The thing is... without belief in a benevolent pre-existing intelligence (I will use the word "God" instead of that clumsy title, but understand that I mean something like "God or someone very similar to Him") then morality, good and evil, right and wrong, human rights, all these things are just illusions. You see, if there was no God to set the rules before humans came along, then all of these things are simply human inventions, no more inalienable than an ideology, a sports team, or any other thing made up by people. If God didn't say "Human beings have the right to life" then that means at some point in human history, a human being said it, and that person had no more right to dictate morality to me than Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden.

As such, if you want to rely on inarguable human rights, and the idea that such things as right and wrong really exist, then you also have to accept that some authority that preceded humanity must have set up these rules for us.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

I dunno, I think boorite pretty well summed it up. Evil, bad, wrong, whatever is "avoidable suffering". Works for me.

Of course. There are shades of that. Sometimes a lesser evil is necessary to prevent a greater evil. Many religions embrace the concept while simultaneously decrying it as defined that way.

What makes one evil lesser than another... well, that's really kind of subjective. That's why people cling to religion. They are clinging to something that's willing to make that decision so that they do not have to.

Me? I'm willing to make those decisions as I need to.

---
I am a delicate fucking flower. https://beacons.ai/jesskent

...but without a solid moral foundation, good and evil become simply what you think good and evil are. Something is bad only if you think it is bad, and you, and society, really have no right to tell someone else what is acceptable behaviour, nor to punish them for deviating from that behaviour.

---
This signature has performed an illegal operation and has been shut down.

[quote]
Jesus has said from the beginning . . . that you must accept everyone the way they are even if they don't have the same religion as you, even IF they are "sinners" (even that is in the eye of the beholder of course)[/quote]

He did rail against hypocrites, but I don't recall His saying that we should accept everyone as he is. In fact, he told his apostles to shun and abandon whoever rejected His message ("shake the dust off your feet" Mat 10:14). That's not exactly acceptance. Neither is His assurance that most people are going to Hell, nor lots of other stuff He said and did. Don't get me wrong-- I'm glad you, like most Christians, are more liberal than that.

[quote]
I think it's time we all realised that basically, when it all comes down to it .. all the major religions of this world are the same.[/quote]

I appreciate the tolerance embodied in this sentiment, but unfortunately, I don't think it's true. Even Judaism and Christianity differ so radically as to make a joke of the term Judaeo-Christian. I agree that there might be common or even universal elements of religious experience across cultures, but we won't arrive at them simply by declaring all religions the same.

Anyway, I'm glad you're here and tolerant. These forums aren't so rancorous, really. I hope you stay.

---
What others say about boorite!

[quote]You see, if there was no God to set the rules before humans came along, then all of these things are simply human inventions, no more inalienable than an ideology, a sports team, or any other thing made up by people.
[/quote]

Such as religion. :-)

[quote]
As such, if you want to rely on inarguable human rights, and the idea that such things as right and wrong really exist, then you also have to accept that some authority that preceded humanity must have set up these rules for us.[/quote]

There is an alternative. We can begin with the simple assumption that life is preferable to death, and happiness superior to misery. And we can recognize the truism that a society without rules cannot exist long, and that society can only be secure if those rules are applied consistently. These are not great leaps of faith, and they needn't presuppose a supreme intelligence-- just a need to get along.

---
What others say about boorite!

Morality through religion is based on belief in a set of moral protocols. Morality without religion is based on belief in a set of moral protocols. The difference is ______ ?

I am not a church-goer, but I think I am probably a better christian in my behavior than many self-proclaimed christians. Where did I get my morals? From my parents, from my community, from observation of the world. Just because the morals I believe in do not come from a book does not mean that my morality is any more precarious than bible-based morality. You only need look at what has been done in the name of "god" throughout ancient and modern history to see that book-based morality is as relative as any other form.

And, by the way, Gabe "knows" the beasts of the field in the biblical way.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

Sorry, pal. We're going to see a fundamentalist getting his fundament cornholed! Yeeeeee-ha!

Of course! Didn't you see on TV all the queers and secular humanists taking up arms for the coming Holy War against America?

Sure! Yes! Obviously!

---
What others say about boorite!

[quote]Of course! Didn't you see on TV all the queers and secular humanists taking up arms for the coming Holy War against America?

Sure! Yes! Obviously!
[/quote]

That bin Laden. He's nothing but a big gay fetus-killing feminist.

But that argument is circular. If there's no objective morality, then you have the right to do whatever you like, including punishing people as you wish!

[quote]stripcreator is no place for those squeamish about cornholing, cornholes, or cornholery in general. This is also not a place to call people of a certain persuasion "sodomites."

Tobor will be over shortly to give you sensitivity training.[/quote]Can we call people "gommorons" instead?

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

All this talk of "right and wrong" existing or otherwise is ill-defined. What do you actually mean by "right or wrong"? Is a "wrong" thing defined as something that it's justified to punish someone for doing?

[Click to view comic: 'Divin' the Terrible']

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

[quote]Morality through religion is based on belief in a set of moral protocols. Morality without religion is based on belief in a set of moral protocols. The difference is ______ ?

I am not a church-goer, but I think I am probably a better christian in my behavior than many self-proclaimed christians. Where did I get my morals? From my parents, from my community, from observation of the world. Just because the morals I believe in do not come from a book does not mean that my morality is any more precarious than bible-based morality. You only need look at what has been done in the name of "god" throughout ancient and modern history to see that book-based morality is as relative as any other form.[/quote]

As was mentioned some time ago in the religion thread, I'm with wirthling on this one. It brings to mind something that happened to me one morning last year. I'd just gotten onto the elevator at work with two muffins I'd just bought from the cafeteria. There were a couple of women in the elevator, and one of them looked at me and said, "If you were a good Christian, you'd share your muffins with me." I just smiled, but I should have said, "If you really want a muffin, just ask and I'll give you one. It doesn't have anything to do with being a Christian, it has to do with me being a generous person who enjoys doing nice things for other people."

[quote]
And, by the way, Gabe "knows" the beasts of the field in the biblical way.[/quote]

I "know" wirthling's wife in the biblical way, too.

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

In case any new people are interested, the old religion thread can be found here. It's worth a look, as there's a lot of good stuff there. The forums aren't all about donkey sex and robot sodomy. About 8 percent are something else.

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

Boy, sometimes I wonder how I managed to accidentally start that religion thread. Anyway, one comment...

Yes... moralists have been hitting that same wall for thousands of years now. That's why I keep the Social Contract Theory in mind. I think the most basic rule people have to remember is "We all have to be able to live with each other."

I also go by a standard pretty much like boorite's for judging morality: "How much good does this do?"

Incidentally, I'd like to finally say that I'm very religious. I'm not going to say which one(s), though.

---
"Only things I approve of should exist." -some guy on the internet

Wow. I go away for a day and everyone comes to my argument.

To all those involved- I just wanna say that

1. I am tolerant. I do not hate "sinners", but I don't con myself into the belief that they are living an "acceptable" lifestyle. Acceptable to you and socioty maybe, but not to God.

2. Thanks to everyone who came to my defense as a individual with strong beliefs and the right to believe them

3. Sorry to ladyj, you seemed like a nice person. I didn't know you were another crab. j/k :-]

4. Two points I wanna make about this psuedo-philosophical conversation:
a. I read an interesting idea in "Starship troopers". About how the Right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were wrong because,

"What right does a man who is drowning in the middle of the pacific have? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only answer, who's right is 'unalienable'? And is it right?"

"Liberty is never unalienable, it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots... Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."

"The third 'right'? - the pursuit of happiness? It is indeed unalienable but is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away and patriots cannot restore... I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs can insure that i will catch it."
Food for thought.

b. The whole idea of saying that right and wrong are a relative term and not an absolute is ludicrous. You need to see it in black and white. Yes there may be “gray” issues that are hard to deal with, but if we take away the values that help us now the difference between right and wrong we invite chaos.

There's more horseshit in that post than I care to shovel right now.

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."

ditto

---
I am a delicate fucking flower. https://beacons.ai/jesskent

[quote]b. The whole idea of saying that right and wrong are a relative term and not an absolute is ludicrous. You need to see it in black and white. Yes there may be “gray” issues that are hard to deal with, but if we take away the values that help us now the difference between right and wrong we invite chaos.
[/quote]

Wow. Looks like most meta-ethicists are "ludicrous", then.
I repeat my earlier question: what makes something "right" as opposed to "wrong"? What's the intrinsic property these things have, by which they can be recognised? Since you've got it all figured out, please let us unenlightened know.

[quote]b. The whole idea of saying that right and wrong are a relative term and not an absolute is ludicrous. You need to see it in black and white. Yes there may be “gray” issues that are hard to deal with, but if we take away the values that help us now the difference between right and wrong we invite chaos.
[/quote]

So somewhere there's a big list of dos and don'ts that I should be following in order to dictate how I run my life? I suppose using the word fuck is probably one of them, eh? And each time I do it, I'm losing points on my cosmic scorecard?

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

Well fuck.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

Fuck that.

---
I am a delicate fucking flower. https://beacons.ai/jesskent

fuck fuckety fuckenstein

---
"And Wirthling isn't worth the paper he isn't printed on."