Do morals restrict people?

[Sunstone]

I believe morals restrict people. I believe that's the whole point of morals. To restrict our sinful nature.

To restrict your sinful nature. My nature isn't sinful.

 

[jacobweymouth]

To restrict your sinful nature. My nature isn't sinful.

Okay.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Seriously, though...

I'm not a philosopher -I just try to think like my opposites do. That being said, it would depend on your definition of "sin". I think the earliest signs -a baby losing his/her temper- is proof of sin nature,

 

[whereismynotecard]

To restrict your sinful nature. My nature isn't sinful.

I bet my nature is very sinful. (according to various definitions of what sinful is.)

 

[McBell]

Seriously, though...

I'm not a philosopher -I just try to think like my opposites do. That being said, it would depend on your definition of "sin". I think the earliest signs -a baby losing his/her temper- is proof of sin nature,

It is a sin to lose your temper?

I define sin as going against the wishes/will of your chosen deity.

 

[Sunstone]

I define sin as going against the wishes/will of your chosen deity.

That was pretty much my impression too.

 

[Falvlun]

Seriously, though...

I'm not a philosopher -I just try to think like my opposites do. That being said, it would depend on your definition of "sin". I think the earliest signs -a baby losing his/her temper- is proof of sin nature,

How is it a sin to lose one's temper if you have not yet learned that it is wrong to do so, and how you are to control it in the first place?

That's like claiming a 5 year old will be a dunce in geometry because he couldn't figure out the hypotenuse using the pythagorean theorem.

 

[tomspug]

I define sin as doing anything that is harmful to yourself AND others, which is the majority of what we choose to do... There's no NEED for God to define those things for us, but he does because we are relatively stupid people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I define sin as doing anything that is harmful to yourself AND others, which is the majority of what we choose to do... There's no NEED for God to define those things for us, but he does because we are relatively stupid people.

Does that mean you don't consider things like "keeping the Sabbath holy" to be sins?

 

[tomspug]

All right... please show me Federal statute, state law or county/city ordinance that demands that people behave with kindness or loyalty.

Show me where my religion punishes me for not behaving with kindness or loyalty, or at the very least, restricts me.

I acknowledge that murder has always been generally seen as wrong, but homicide as a crime is a relatively recent concept. Back in the day, the deterrent against murdering someone was the retribution that would come from the victim's family. There wasn't a whole lot to stop someone from, say, killing a beggar if they wanted to... besides their own personal morals, that is.

Well, how far back to do want to go? If you want to go BEFORE the Constitution, yes, there were a lot of countries that were not founded on a religious model, instead promoting a financial hierarchy where injustice was not only easy, but justice was only concerned with the prominent.

What you call "sin", I call "lack of confidence" and, yes, "lack of order". How exactly do you think things would play out in a society that doesn't have some mechanism for restitution and punishment in the event of theft? Basically, you'd be leaving that restitution and punishment (or, more likely, retribution) to the vigilantes. Having police and courts gives the victims of crime an outlet besides going after their perpetrators themselves.

You keep trying to distinguish law from religion, but every example you give perfectly defines the benefit of a moral authority. I agree that society NEEDS law, but it doesn't necessarily follow then that law and religion are different. There are plenty of governments that find no need to give equal treatment to the rich AND the poor, victims and perpetrators... To believe in justice is to believe in God, or the idea of God, because that is what the Christian God is, an embodiment of eternal justice. To believe in the value of justice and equality is to believe in the value of God, regardless of whether we have come to view God as something else due to our bad interactions with bad religion.

It is one thing to say that LAW (the idea of it) could have emerged out of necessity and another thing altogether to say that GOOD law emerged out of necessity. I ask "for WHOSE necessity" did fair law and equality emerge? An unbiased court system doesn't benefit anyone, because it is unbiased, and therefore it could not have emerged out of necessity, because it is a SELFLESS idea. It is a moral idea to have an unbiased court system. It is an idea birthed from the concept of an unbiased moral authority that sets laws and then lets the law determine the outcomes, rather than individual will. This is the exact same thing as the Christian God, which admittedly may be different from what you were taught about him, that he does whatever the hell he wants and punishes people who don't do what he wants them to.

In other words, I have no disagreements with you. The only difference between us is that you see God as NOT being like a perfect system of justice and I do.

 

[tomspug]

Does that mean you don't consider things like "keeping the Sabbath holy" to be sins?

I think we can all agree that "resting on the seventh day" (it's called a day off) is not only good, but vital for our sanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Show me where my religion punishes me for not behaving with kindness or loyalty, or at the very least, restricts me.

Hang on... you're moving the goalposts. You said that the law gives us a moral code. In my mind (and hopefully in the minds of most people), kindness and loyalty are just two of the many moral issues that any real moral code must address, but the law of the land does not.

Well, how far back to do want to go? If you want to go BEFORE the Constitution, yes, there were a lot of countries that were not founded on a religious model, instead promoting a financial hierarchy where injustice was not only easy, but justice was only concerned with the prominent.

We can go as far back as you or I want. If there's such a thing as absolut morality, and if it's codified in the law, then that law should be unchanging.

You keep trying to distinguish law from religion, but every example you give perfectly defines the benefit of a moral authority.

No, actually, I'm trying to distinguish law from morality.

In other words, I have no disagreements with you. The only difference between us is that you see God as NOT being like a perfect system of justice and I do.

Unless you're saying that the laws of the United States (or any other country) are unchanging creations of God's own hand, I think our difference of opinion on God is irrelevant to what we're talking about... though I get the impression that you're now talking about something new.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think we can all agree that "resting on the seventh day" (it's called a day off) is not only good, but vital for our sanity.

Spending a day resting doesn't necessarily imply dedicating that day to God. Does an atheist who doesn't work on weekends "keep the Sabbath holy"? If not, is this a sin?

 

[Magic Man]

I define sin as doing anything that is harmful to yourself AND others, which is the majority of what we choose to do...

Really? What's the last thing you did that harmed you and others? The only things I can think of for myself were quite a while ago.

There's no NEED for God to define those things for us, but he does because we are relatively stupid people.

We're stupid people relative to what?

 

[Father Heathen]

Seriously, though...

I'm not a philosopher -I just try to think like my opposites do. That being said, it would depend on your definition of "sin". I think the earliest signs -a baby losing his/her temper- is proof of sin nature,

Normal, developmental behavior of infants is "sinful"? Do you honestly think an infant is even capable of comprehending the concept of ethics? So a baby will lay in its crib while contemplating and weighting the implications of their actions? Please.

 

[Magic Man]

Show me where my religion punishes me for not behaving with kindness or loyalty, or at the very least, restricts me.

You're missing the point. Your religion tells you it's wrong not to behave with kindness and loyalty, right? You could say the punishment they give you is your guilt when you don't act like that. It restricts you in that it gets it into your head that you should act that way.

Anyway, the whole point was that as far as the law is concerned, we don't have to be nice or loyal, we just have to not do certain actions. Religion and morality tell us that we should be kind and loyal, etc.

Well, how far back to do want to go? If you want to go BEFORE the Constitution, yes, there were a lot of countries that were not founded on a religious model, instead promoting a financial hierarchy where injustice was not only easy, but justice was only concerned with the prominent.

Huh? What's the point here?

You keep trying to distinguish law from religion, but every example you give perfectly defines the benefit of a moral authority.

No, the idea is to distinguish between law and morality. Laws aren't a moral authority.

I do find it odd that you still haven't addressed the issue of laws against jaywalking and the like. Are you purposely ignoring it or did you just forget it or miss it?

I agree that society NEEDS law, but it doesn't necessarily follow then that law and religion are different. There are plenty of governments that find no need to give equal treatment to the rich AND the poor, victims and perpetrators...

Isn't that a perfect example to refute your claim? Isn't that an example of moral relativism in action?

To believe in justice is to believe in God, or the idea of God, because that is what the Christian God is, an embodiment of eternal justice. To believe in the value of justice and equality is to believe in the value of God, regardless of whether we have come to view God as something else due to our bad interactions with bad religion.

I think that's stretching it more than a little bit.

 

[jacobweymouth]

How is it a sin to lose one's temper if you have not yet learned that it is wrong to do so,

That's why we have an age of accountability -the baby would be held blameless. On the other hand, it's still wrong -they can't help it: that's why it's natural. Wrong+natural=sin nature.

and how you are to control it in the first place?

As a baby, he/she can't -that's why babies are innocent. Their sinful nature takes control when they don't get what

That's like claiming a 5 year old will be a dunce in geometry because he couldn't figure out the hypotenuse using the pythagorean theorem.

Not really.

 

[jacobweymouth]

Normal, developmental behavior of infants is "sinful"? Do you honestly think an infant is even capable of comprehending the concept of ethics? So a baby will lay in its crib while contemplating and weighting the implications of their actions? Please.

Both of you -you and Favlun- got too caught up in the example and missed the point entirely.

I'll respond to this for the bold section. The baby isn't making a concious decision to sin -i.e. it doesn't know it's sinning. While that means that the baby is innocent, it also means that there is only one alternative: it's natural.

 

[McBell]

*pulls out rubber raft*


*Inflates rubber raft*


*Climbs into rubber raft*


Damn! that was close!!

 

[McBell]

Now that I am safely in my rubber raft....

That's why we have an age of accountability -the baby would be held blameless. On the other hand, it's still wrong -they can't help it: that's why it's natural. Wrong+natural=sin nature.

Please explain how losing your temper is a sin.

As a baby, he/she can't -that's why babies are innocent. Their sinful nature takes control when they don't get what

So they are sinners (that has yet to be explained) yet innocent?
How does that work, is it like amnesty?

I'll respond to this for the bold section. The baby isn't making a concious decision to sin -i.e. it doesn't know it's sinning. While that means that the baby is innocent, it also means that there is only one alternative: it's natural.

So God supports the idea that ignorance of the law is exception to the law?