some of the things I don't understand.........

A moral and ethical life, to me, includes many principles.

Such as :- not harming any living organism.
Never doing an unkind deed.
Never lying.
Observing and 'obeying' the ten commandments.
Living the best life possible so as to set an example to others.
Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.
Never seeing an injustice without doing my utmost to redress what is wrong.
(I'll leave it at that for now; I dare say that I will think of many more, but this will do, for a start).

The principles of a 'moral and ethical' life, for me, obviously include a 'religious slant' on most of the above dictates.

Yet, it never ceases to confuse me that the way that God made us humans (and no, I am not a believer in I.D), most of the 'need to do list' to which I subject myself, is impossible to follow and 'sounds wrong' just looking at nature itself.

(not harming any living organism.) - can't eat anything that is alive; meat, fish, plants.
(Never doing an unkind deed) - Come on.................
(Never lying.). White lies ? - not having admitted to my wife that I chipped one of her favourite pottery table lamps, and I have tried to glue it togeather ? (Never lying, as in 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth)
(Observing and 'obeying' the ten commandments.) There is absolutely no way that I can claim to have succeeded in doing that - sure, there are some that are mush easier to follow than others, but all of them ?
(Living the best life possible so as to set an example to others) Waking up in the morning, after a bad night, feeling tired out, with a short fuse ? being 'Mr Perfect' ? NO.
(Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.) Ah, well.............forget that one.
(Never seeing an injustice without doing my utmost to redress what is wrong) If I had observed that dictate, I probably wouldn't be alive now. If I was, I would have spent my entire life in the futile persuit of puting wrongs right.

Is it therefore a total contradiction in terms to live the life of a moral, ethical and Religious person?

Are the demands infact totally impossible to achieve ?

"Never", in context to morality, is a word that defies reason.

I guess I would say that God didn't make us this way, rather Adam and Eve made a choice that gave us the opportunity to learn good from evil through experience in this life. Luckily, God knew that we wouldn't be perfect and sent the Savior to redeem us.

The good news is that while we are imperfect in some areas, if you think hard enough you are probably doing great in other areas.

I love this scripture in the Book of Mormon, and I think it applies to what you are saying:

"And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men to humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

http://scriptures.lds.org/ether/12/27

Interesting. We agree with a couple of your principles, but also believe that several of them are not necessary for a moral life. Some of them seem out of the rhythm of nature, and are therefore exeedingly (if not pointless) for a human to follow. With respect, we'll try to illustrate:

"(not harming any living organism.) - can't eat anything that is alive; meat, fish, plants."
If you can't eat these things, what are you going to survive on? But if it helps you feel better, consider the fact that they are not living when you eat them (at least, we hope not).

"(Never doing an unkind deed)"
Sometimes unkind deeds are necessary to promote general goodness in the world (example: killing nazis in WWII--unkind [to them]. Stopping the German Reich--priceless). We think it mostly depends on your motivation, and whether that is unkind or noble.

"(Never lying.)"
Again, this depends on the motive. A lot of animals use deception as a form of survival. Sometimes people need to lie to do good in the world. Scenario: Ex-con child molester breaks into a house, ties up the mother/father in the kitchen. "Anyone else live here?" he asks (not knowing about 2 kids sleeping upstairs). "No" says the mom. To not lie in this case would be immoral.

"(Observing and 'obeying' the ten commandments.) "
We're not Christian, so we find this unnecessary.

"(Living the best life possible so as to set an example to others)"
This is a good one. We agree. Self-actualization, and what not...but you can't be your best ALL the time, so we would advise not to fret about when "Mr. Perfect" is out to lunch.

"(Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.)"
Moderation is a good rule of thumb. But why not live a little? To paraphrase Mae West, too much of a good thing can be wonderful--but it can lead to consequences (and hangovers).

"(Never seeing an injustice without doing my utmost to redress what is wrong)"
More people should have this one on their list of morals.

So to answer the question, we think that it is not a contradiction in terms to live the life of a moral/ethical person--just make sure you subscribe to the right morals. The demands that you place on yourself should be reasonable for a human, and thus, not impossible.

not harming any living organism.

Click to expand...

Well, you do have to eat to live, so it is neccessary to cause some degree of harm. Also, we would have many outragously, out-of-control yards if they were never mowed.

Never doing an unkind deed.

Click to expand...

Sometimes it becomes neccesary. Such as going to war to defend against an invader who will not negotiate.

Never lying.

Click to expand...

I believe that there comes a time when a white-lie becomes neccessary. Mainly when your trying to keep someone in the dark about somethig they shouldn't get involved in, or keeping a group of young kids calm.
An example would be when the school I went to had an anthrax scare. The highschool students were told what was going on, as were the middleschoolers, but the elementary students were told thier was a problem with that air-conditioner, and they would all be going over to the middle school. Even though the powder was just flour, and it was during late September, so I fail to see why they said there was a problem with the air-conditioner, I think it was a good idea, so they wouldn't worry and scare kids who are only 5 to 9 years old.

Observing and 'obeying' the ten commandments.

Click to expand...

If you Christian that would be good. If your not Christian, or Jewish, then there would be no reason to follow them.

Living the best life possible so as to set an example to others.

Click to expand...

While I agree you should set a good example, I don't think you should live every moment as a model citizen. Life would get very dull after awhile.

Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.

Click to expand...

I think getting a good buzz from alcohol is ok. Maybe a bit more. If someone wants to get really drunk, thats ok to. Just as long as they don't do anything that endangers others, such as driving, and if they realize they will feel really bad the next morning.

Never seeing an injustice without doing my utmost to redress what is wrong.

Click to expand...

That is a good one to live by.

michel said:

Yet, it never ceases to confuse me that the way that God made us humans (and no, I am not a believer in I.D)

Click to expand...

???? that has to be one of the strangest comments ive heard from someone professing to be a Christian, You belive that God made us yet you dont belive in intelligent design - does that mean that you think God is unintelligent?

Michel as a christian do you actually belive Jesus is the author of life? what does being a christian actually mean to you? In your theology did God just happen to find us after random chance created us and everything else? Did he then decide he wanted to become one of us and be crucified for all the things we have done wrong?
When you pray do you belive God is actually hearing you? In your mind what role does God play in our reality? Do you belive Jesus performed miracles as described in the bible and if so why dont you belive he also created us?
The reason im asking this is because from so many of your posts it seems like God is so superficial to you. Will you be supprised if after you die it turns out that the bible is actually true? When you stand befor our creator in all his majesty, glory and power?
I hope i havnt offend you but you really puzzle me.

This reminds me of something a very... uh... "outpoken" person from another board posted.... The Good Person Test.

I of course, failed miserably, even though I have the Answer Book. The cool thing is, the test grader traded scores with me, so even though I'm a pathetic loser, I'm given a perfect score

???? that has to be one of the strangest comments ive heard from someone professing to be a Christian, You belive that God made us yet you dont belive in intelligent design - does that mean that you think God is unintelligent?

Click to expand...

It is going off topic, but when I was Christian, I would have said ID is a load of crap. Mathmatical formulas and the randomness of things, and not understanding why something happened is not needed to prove God created everything in only a few days.
I don't understand why you'd have to believe in ID to be a Christian.

michel said:

(not harming any living organism.) - can't eat anything that is alive; meat, fish, plants

Click to expand...

Well, this one's a little off. God gave us permission to eat plants and animal. So trying that hard to not eat one really has no point.

Michel said:

(Never doing an unkind deed) - Come on.................

Click to expand...

What? Isn't that something we should strive for?

Michel said:

(Observing and 'obeying' the ten commandments.) There is absolutely no way that I can claim to have succeeded in doing that - sure, there are some that are mush easier to follow than others, but all of them ?

Click to expand...

SHould we now just throw out what God wants us to do because they're "too hard?" Heaven forbid that's how we all lived our lives.

Michel said:

(Living the best life possible so as to set an example to others) Waking up in the morning, after a bad night, feeling tired out, with a short fuse ? being 'Mr Perfect' ? NO.

Click to expand...

Nobody's asking you to be mister perfect. They're asking you to be the best that you can be. And shouldn't you try to do that?

Michel said:

(Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.) Ah, well.............forget that one

Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at that one. I have never over induldged in alcohol, and I rarely over indulge in food. It's actually one of the easiest ones on your list for me to follow.

Michel said:

(Never seeing an injustice without doing my utmost to redress what is wrong) If I had observed that dictate, I probably wouldn't be alive now. If I was, I would have spent my entire life in the futile persuit of puting wrongs right.

Click to expand...

This one is just impossible anyway. How could you put all wrongs right? Because then you would be doing a wrong to you family (by never spending time with them) so, in order to right that, you would have to stop righting the other wrongs.

Steve said:

???? that has to be one of the strangest comments ive heard from someone professing to be a Christian, You belive that God made us yet you dont belive in intelligent design - does that mean that you think God is unintelligent?

Michel as a christian do you actually belive Jesus is the author of life? what does being a christian actually mean to you? In your theology did God just happen to find us after random chance created us and everything else? Did he then decide he wanted to become one of us and be crucified for all the things we have done wrong?
When you pray do you belive God is actually hearing you? In your mind what role does God play in our reality? Do you belive Jesus performed miracles as described in the bible and if so why dont you belive he also created us?
The reason im asking this is because from so many of your posts it seems like God is so superficial to you. Will you be supprised if after you die it turns out that the bible is actually true? When you stand befor our creator in all his majesty, glory and power?
I hope i havnt offend you but you really puzzle me.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't offendd me, but I hope I won't offend you either. I hate to say this, because I know some Christians on the forum will not like it - and you sound as though you might well be one of them.

No, I do not believe that God created the Earth in six days, and dumped Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden. I believe that that was the best way to explain the idea of God to everyone.

God is in no way superficial; he is why I am alive. You surprise me by saying that and I'd love to know what I have said to make you think that. I believe in Jesus Christ who was born, crucified, died and was resurected, in order that we may be forgiven our sins. I believe that Jesus Christ's life was all about 'example'.

I know evolution to be a fact.

No, I do not believe that God created the Earth in six days, and dumped Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden. I believe that that was the best way to explain the idea of God to everyone.

God is in no way superficial; he is why I am alive. You surprise me by saying that and I'd love to know what I have said to make you think that. I believe in Jesus Christ who was born, crucified, died and was resurected, in order that we may be forgiven our sins. I believe that Jesus Christ's life was all about 'example'.

Click to expand...

So, if God didn't 'dump Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden' what would have been the point of sending Jesus? He was sent to save us from the sins that started with Adam and Eve. Sorry, Michel, but I don't believe in picking and choosing what you want to believe, in the Bible. Either accept it or deny it.

Michel I believe this to be the problem with absolute morality. Such a mindset assumes that, given any scenario, you will always have the option to choose to do the right thing. Furthermore, it over simplifies issues.

In reality, how much harm have you actually done by not telling your wife you chipped her table lamp? If the answer is none then perhaps it is your absolute moral that is at fault by preventing you from doing things that are totally legitimate.

Maybe there's a flaw with the rational that there is some list of restricted activities imposed by the supernatural. Or possibly, the list was written out by men interested in attracting the greatest possible number of followers and, therefore, they selected the most obvious and impossible set of rules in order to proclaim that everyone was immoral/flawed and, therefore, dependent upon the "love and mercy" of their God. I don't know. I'm just speculating. Of course, I don't hold such high standards for myself and rarely feel guilt as a consequence.

michel said:

A moral and ethical life, to me, includes many principles.

Such as :- not harming any living organism.

Never over-indulging in eating or drinking alcohol.

Click to expand...

drinking any alcohol at all harms the drinker.

john313 said:

drinking any alcohol at all harms the drinker.

Click to expand...

That's not the whole story though. Alcohol and ether are identical compounds save ether is short one molecule of water. As an anesthesia, ether has certainly caused much good. I'm sure alcohol, even though it is a poor anesthesia, has done some good in the past. Not to mention, didn't the doctors say one glass of wine a day was good for you?

didn't the doctors say one glass of wine a day was good for you?

Click to expand...

A glass of wine or a can of beer a day is supposed to be great for your health, or at least thats what I've read and heard from many scientific findings.

Michel pondered:

Is it therefore a total contradiction in terms to live the life of a moral, ethical and Religious person?

Are the demands infact totally impossible to achieve ?

Click to expand...

I would suppose that depends upon the "demands" (by dogma/"commands") placed upon religious adherents. Christians have it "easy", compared to, say...Muslims. Islam forbids alcohol consumption. No pork allowed. No unmarried couples holding hands on dates. No unmarried male and female permitted to be left alone together in a room. Mandatory prayer to God, five times a day. And that's not even the really strict version...;-)

Generally, I would I echo Fluffy's observation:

"Michel I believe this to be the problem with absolute morality. Such a mindset assumes that, given any scenario, you will always have the option to choose to do the right thing. Furthermore, it over simplifies issues."

Click to expand...

Unbelievers are often criticized for employing "subjective" morality/ethics (inferring that unbelievers are either unwilling or unable to accept any moral/ethical "absolutes" - which is, of course, utterly mischaracterizing and untrue. Unbelievers may in fact retain their own personalized sense of moral/ethical "absolutes". Those particulars just may not be in lock-step with a proscribed sectarian religious dogma or deity decree).

Biblically speaking, it's understandable (though from my perspective, indefensible) to lay down succeeding levels of moral/ethical/religious "absolutes" that are never intended (or permitted) to be subject to question or equivocation. Either something is "forbidden" (or a "sin"), or it's not. Either you as an adherent are supposed (commanded) to think/act/believe in a certain way, "or else".

Let's be real. When the "rules/laws" of the Bible were being constructed and laid out (and subsequently "evolved" in a sense, by Jesus), critical thinking was not high on anybody's list of human priorities. The overwhelming majority of "the great unwashed" were illiterate, ignorant, poor, and controlled (by theocratic, feudal, or monarchal rule) in what they could say; what they could own; where they could live; how much they could keep of what they earned; what they could teach; who they could marry, etc. Theses were not folks that were prone to see shades of grey, nor certainly were they encouraged to do so. ("The king has no clothes!"; "Thanks for your input...Sorry, but now we have to remove your head from your torso; King's orders"). Laying down "absolutes" in those days made "sense", both for the slaves/peasants, and most particularly...for those running the local show (primarily clerics, monarchs, and dictators) that wished to maintain the status quo.

[Aside: Secularized "moral absolutism" is evidenced by those idiotic "zero tolerance" policies we see in communities today. Countless singular examples of painfully obvious and reasonable exceptions to such idiotic and mindless policies are now having to be revisited and revised on an ongoing basis (like the six-year old boy suspended from elementary school for "sexual harassment" because he kissed a girl; the girl who was expelled because her mother packed Tylenol in her backpack for her headache; like the girl that was expelled for having a four-inch, "deadly weapon" hair-pin in her 'doo; like the kids expelled for having purple hair, or wearing black lipstick). As ridiculous as it may seem, it is now state law in TN that any off-premises sale of beer (not hard liquor, btw - go figure) mandates presentation of ID in order to buy that beer. No exceptions. Even if you know it's your own 75-year-old grandfather. "No ID. No sale. No exceptions." Stupid. Brainless. Insulting. Such "policies" exempt anyone from exercising any amount of common sense or personal responsibility/accountability in decision-making..."dumbing-down" the "great-unwashed" to the level of unthinking morons...like, um, 2500 years ago.]

I confess that I have it easy as an atheist. I have no religious dogma to follow; no "commandments" to obey; no fear of divine retribution, nor expectation of divine reward to make me "be good". I am bound by, accept, and adhere to established civil and criminal laws. I also retain my prerogative to define and abide by my own sets of ethical/moral conduct and sensibilities, with concurrent responsibility/accountability in so doing. This is not to suggest that I am never confronted (or challenged) by ethical/moral dilemmas. When my wife asks me "Do these pants make my butt look big?", how far am I willing to go to be completely honest in answer, yet placate my moral/ethical standards (and the hinging prospect of getting laid that night is yet another factor)? If we're invited out to dinner by a couple that really likes our company, but we're just not that enamored of theirs...do we make up some false excuse in bowing-out; tell them that we really don't enjoy their company; or just "grin and bear it"?

I wouldn't presuppose to suggest to any religious person that they should abandon their beliefs...if that's what drives them to be a moral/ethical person in life. But I have to tell you, in my lifetime of personal interactive experiences..."believers" are amongst the most conflicted, guilt-ridden, confused, and morosely pessimistic and guarded people I've had the circumstance to meet.

But hey...whatever makes you happy. ;-)

Hello cturne,

You asked (of Michel):

So, if God didn't 'dump Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden' what would have been the point of sending Jesus? He was sent to save us from the sins that started with Adam and Eve. Sorry, Michel, but I don't believe in picking and choosing what you want to believe, in the Bible. Either accept it or deny it.

Click to expand...

Ya know ctume, I have no dog in this fight, and no "side" to root for, for I consider all religion bunk. But it never ceases to amaze me that adherents amongst various sects of the same religion constantly snipe at one another, and challenge (or impugn) the piety/sincerity of another.

The whole concept of "literal" interpretation of Scripture vs. "metaphorical" interpretation of the Bible always seems to be the most contentious indictment offered by "inerrant literalists".
"If you don't believe in Genesis as literal fact/truth, how can you believe anything the Bible says?"

Since you don't "believe in cherry-picking" from Scripture, perhaps you could suggest the definitive version/translation of the Bible that every "good" Christian should accept as the absolutely inerrant, literally accurate, testament of God's Word. Obviously, there can only be ONE inerringly accurate testament, rendering all others as flawed and unworthy.

Does the Bible suggest/employ the use of metaphors in "explaining" God's Word? It would seem so...

What of Galatians 4:22-31, within which it is said: "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants."?

What of Judges 9:8-15? Were the trees literally talking to one another, or is this a parable?

Jeremiah 13:12-14? Was the Lord speaking literally, or figuratively of instilling "drunkenness"?

Ezekiel 19:1-9? Literal, or metaphorical?

Acts 10:10-16? What was "the sheet"? Something from the Laura Ashley collection, or something else? If it was only "like a sheet", then what was it really?

Did Jesus use parables in teaching? Why would he? Was their any purpose in teaching this way? Why wouldn't He just "say what He means" in the most literal and straightforward method possible?

Besides the two differing accountings of "Creation" in Genesis, is there any Scripture (in any Chapter) that states categorically that Genesis isn't or couldn't be allegory/metaphor, or that it may only be consumed as literal fact?

Finally, where do "wayward" Christians go to take the "true faith" test? You know, the definitive test that any "good" Christian must pass in order that they might rightfully profess themselves as a "true" Christian? Is this test available online, with perhaps a referenced link? Who composes the defining questions, and provides the only "true", "correct" answers? Who grades such a test? God Himself...or mortal men prone to error, pride, hubris, and sin?

Proverbs 11:1-2
"The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight.
When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom."

s2a said:

Michel pondered:


I would suppose that depends upon the "demands" (by dogma/"commands") placed upon religious adherents. Christians have it "easy", compared to, say...Muslims. Islam forbids alcohol consumption. No pork allowed. No unmarried couples holding hands on dates. No unmarried male and female permitted to be left alone together in a room. Mandatory prayer to God, five times a day. And that's not even the really strict version...;-)

Generally, I would I echo Fluffy's observation:

Unbelievers are often criticized for employing "subjective" morality/ethics (inferring that unbelievers are either unwilling or unable to accept any moral/ethical "absolutes" - which is, of course, utterly mischaracterizing and untrue. Unbelievers may in fact retain their own personalized sense of moral/ethical "absolutes". Those particulars just may not be in lock-step with a proscribed sectarian religious dogma or deity decree).

Biblically speaking, it's understandable (though from my perspective, indefensible) to lay down succeeding levels of moral/ethical/religious "absolutes" that are never intended (or permitted) to be subject to question or equivocation. Either something is "forbidden" (or a "sin"), or it's not. Either you as an adherent are supposed (commanded) to think/act/believe in a certain way, "or else".

Let's be real. When the "rules/laws" of the Bible were being constructed and laid out (and subsequently "evolved" in a sense, by Jesus), critical thinking was not high on anybody's list of human priorities. The overwhelming majority of "the great unwashed" were illiterate, ignorant, poor, and controlled (by theocratic, feudal, or monarchal rule) in what they could say; what they could own; where they could live; how much they could keep of what they earned; what they could teach; who they could marry, etc. Theses were not folks that were prone to see shades of grey, nor certainly were they encouraged to do so. ("The king has no clothes!"; "Thanks for your input...Sorry, but now we have to remove your head from your torso; King's orders"). Laying down "absolutes" in those days made "sense", both for the slaves/peasants, and most particularly...for those running the local show (primarily clerics, monarchs, and dictators) that wished to maintain the status quo.

[Aside: Secularized "moral absolutism" is evidenced by those idiotic "zero tolerance" policies we see in communities today. Countless singular examples of painfully obvious and reasonable exceptions to such idiotic and mindless policies are now having to be revisited and revised on an ongoing basis (like the six-year old boy suspended from elementary school for "sexual harassment" because he kissed a girl; the girl who was expelled because her mother packed Tylenol in her backpack for her headache; like the girl that was expelled for having a four-inch, "deadly weapon" hair-pin in her 'doo; like the kids expelled for having purple hair, or wearing black lipstick). As ridiculous as it may seem, it is now state law in TN that any off-premises sale of beer (not hard liquor, btw - go figure) mandates presentation of ID in order to buy that beer. No exceptions. Even if you know it's your own 75-year-old grandfather. "No ID. No sale. No exceptions." Stupid. Brainless. Insulting. Such "policies" exempt anyone from exercising any amount of common sense or personal responsibility/accountability in decision-making..."dumbing-down" the "great-unwashed" to the level of unthinking morons...like, um, 2500 years ago.]

I confess that I have it easy as an atheist. I have no religious dogma to follow; no "commandments" to obey; no fear of divine retribution, nor expectation of divine reward to make me "be good". I am bound by, accept, and adhere to established civil and criminal laws. I also retain my prerogative to define and abide by my own sets of ethical/moral conduct and sensibilities, with concurrent responsibility/accountability in so doing. This is not to suggest that I am never confronted (or challenged) by ethical/moral dilemmas. When my wife asks me "Do these pants make my butt look big?", how far am I willing to go to be completely honest in answer, yet placate my moral/ethical standards (and the hinging prospect of getting laid that night is yet another factor)? If we're invited out to dinner by a couple that really likes our company, but we're just not that enamored of theirs...do we make up some false excuse in bowing-out; tell them that we really don't enjoy their company; or just "grin and bear it"?

I wouldn't presuppose to suggest to any religious person that they should abandon their beliefs...if that's what drives them to be a moral/ethical person in life. But I have to tell you, in my lifetime of personal interactive experiences..."believers" are amongst the most conflicted, guilt-ridden, confused, and morosely pessimistic and guarded people I've had the circumstance to meet.

But hey...whatever makes you happy. ;-)

Click to expand...

Very good points, my friend; I think you do yourself an injustice when you say "I confess that I have it easy as an atheist" - I don't believe that any atheist has 'it' any easier than a theist........unless the atheist is immoral.

As a theist, I don't believe in divine retribution; nor do I find the ten commandments any harder to follow than if I was an atheist ( bar the first four), which would be redundant - but they are hardly onerous. I am sure you will agree that commandements 6 to 10 are just as applicable to any moral individual living in society. Neither do I need expectation of divine reward to make me "be good"; being able to sleep at night is reward enough.

You make a fine point (one that often amuses me) about "moral absolutism" in society; a year or so ago, I was asked to remove the tooth picks from my blazer pocket before boarding a plane to Bruxelles; presumably I was going to glue them end to end so as to be able to have a tilt at the Captain and his crew...........:biglaugh:

But what would you have, in the place of moral absolutism ? I personally have a problem with the idea of an elastic conscience, because I am not too sure at which point the coefficient of expansion is located....... It strikes me that the average man/woman in the street would be prepared to move the indicator of "what is right" along the scale as it suits him/her. What does bother me are the unmeasurable rules such as the one now given to schoolteachers in England, who will be allowed to use 'reasonable force' when dealing with delinquent and obnoxious children in class; what is reasonable to me might not be the same as is for you.