See, the thing about legal systems and the Confucianism argument, is the fact that religion existed. Note that my argument was based on the situation where religion never existed in the beginning. Where religion exists, the morals will arise and WILL affect the lives of everyone else, including those not practising religion. After all, even Confucious would have been taught about rights and wrongs by his parents.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phyrra
Would there still be a legal system without morals? Roarkiller ~ I suppose you think not ~ correct me if I'm wrong ... I personally think there wouldn't ~ our own moral conduct and moral sense has lead us to have laws... laws are judged upon the interpretation of right and wrong...

---

A pretty interesting question . I agree that law is made on the basis of moral values and their judgments of right and wrong. It is aimed to provide authoritative regulations in order to make people to adhere to the moralities. Many of the present-day legal constructions have an assumption that people are immoral, and laws are made to keep them away from the temptations of committing unbenevolent acts. But given a society with no moral at all, not even laws can be properly drafted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
See, the thing about legal systems and the Confucianism argument, is the fact that religion existed. Note that my argument was based on the situation where religion never existed in the beginning. Where religion exists, the morals will arise and WILL affect the lives of everyone else, including those not practising religion.

---

It would be moot to argue the influence of religion if you see its position as such. After all, religion is an inalienable part of the history of any major civilization. You can freely assert that any part of history could be an indirect reason of any future event, like Confucianism could have caused the invasion of Tibet states through a series of chain events, just because the whole thing existed in the beginning. Yet is there any merit in such discussion?

What I am focusing on is the direct significance of religion over the arising of moralities. Feel free to have a hypothetical society with religion or not. But when religion fails to become a major factor in play, people will still derive moralities from alternate sources, from teachings of the wise men to the conscience, and will still be restricted by the authority of law. It isn't like a society without religion is equivalent to a society of nothing but raping and robberies. Nevertheless, what existed in the beginning has no relevance if it is unable to exert any influence at all to the scene in question.

Back to the Confucian case, religion/witchcraft at that time was treated as an exclusive privilege to the royal family for predicting future events. Peasants simply had no right to practise religion except "ancestor worship." Yet the practice is more of a tribute for showing gratefulness to the parents, instead of praying them for rewards or curse-avoidance. Filial piety has always been one of the most valued virtue among the Chinese throughout the long history of their civilization. This is also reflected in the teachings of Confucius.

As for the pre-Confucius moral teachings, they were mainly derived from the ancient ancestors and scholars. The Confucian teaching does involve some of the ancient beliefs (eg filial piety), but is much more organized, well-developed and well-argued. That is the reason why it was preferred by everyone from the peasants to the royal family.

I think it would be useful to think about the origin of religion itself for this discussion. So what exactly is religion? It is basically, a hybrid of beliefs and thoughts put forward by a group of wise men, or hailed as "prophets" or "priests" by their followers, to:


1. Explain supernatural events in a convincing manner, by attributing them to (an) external, omnipotent force(s)

2. Develop a guidance on behaviour for the betterment of the people and the tribe as a whole, enforced by stressing the authority of the aforementioned force(s).


Is it really that far-fetched to think that some wise men were more interested in point 2 instead of 1, and achieving it by appealing to the conscience instead of assertion of divine authority? Confucius is a good example, who emphasized on self-actualization by good behaviour, and paid totally zero attention on afterlife, god, heaven and any supernatural/religious idea/entity.

In essence, the origin of religions is not very much different from that of moralistic philosophies, derived from very similar motivations.

In my opinion, it is a little bit arrogant to take "religion" as an absolutely essential precedence to any moral thought when both started on the same ground. I don't mind to engage in a healthy discussion though, with the employment of proper arguments and evidence, instead of repeated statements of assertions.

quote:

---

After all, even Confucious would have been taught about rights and wrongs by his parents.

---

The Confucian school believes that man (Confucius' parents included) have a fundamental sense of right and wrong in their conscience. This is one of the four benevolences that everyone has once they were born. Proper self/peer/parental guidance is neccessary to develop them in order to achieve self-actualization.

Tossing the obscure Confucian principles aside, in practical sense, Confucius' parents had no access to any major religious teaching. Most likely they gained their moral knowledge from their ancestors through the word-of-mouth.

By no means can one assert that "judgement of right and wrong" be completely equivalent to or derived from "religion," without even giving a proper supporting argument.





P.S. this is the first time I write in extended length on something not about Ghibli . Anyway the Ohmu cult religion of Ghibli FTW. Miyazaki is the greatest prophet of all, forseeing the great flood that will cleanse the whole doomed world. I may as well build a shrine dedicated to Kiki the Goddess of cuteness. May all you sinful non-believers purged by the almighty power of Totoro .

__________________
My light novel review blog: ラノなの！@ novel.co.nr

Somehow I don't agree. Simply because we can see the cause and effects every day. Taking religion as guidance, then parents would be guidance to their children. And without this guidance, without anyone telling them what can and cannot be done, children tend to do anything they want with full disregard of morality, simply because they never even knew of its existence.

Of course, there's always that little chance they learn it themselves, like how we learn to keep away from hot pots after being burnt by them. Chaos Theory makes anything possible.

Anyway, you're right, it isn't far to make a discussion on what would happen if such a thing never existed, because a whole string of events would occur differently. The closest we can get to that would be what would happen if such a thing cease to exist.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiji
I think it would be useful to think about the origin of religion itself for this discussion. So what exactly is religion?

---

Firstly, that was a really interesting and thought-provoking responce, Jiji ~ I admire you!

Anyway ~ the question I've quoted. I believe that religion is a response to revelation and inspiration. Inspiration comes from an outside source (such as a holy person, or holy scripture) and revelation comes from inside oneself; a voice or reasoning inside that calls out to us (be it a soul, conscience or supernatural force).

Going back to John Lennon's "imagine" ~ although he is quick to tell us that imagining no religion is "easy if you try", it quite clearly isn't. Religion is such a central part of everything, that removing it would result in a completely different existance to that which we know.

Taking away religion from this world wouldn't help us find 'peace'. As Jiji said, there will always be an alternate source for us to derive morals. The question may be, 'With or without religion, are my morals the same as your morals?'

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

Post last edited by Phyrra on 07.02.2006, 04:41 AM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phyrra
The question may be, 'With or without religion, are my morals the same as your morals?'

---

Hehe another interesting question. It has been an enjoyable discussion and is really rare to see ideas to such depth in these supposed-to-be leisure forums.

What I think is that it is simply impossible to expect an individual to have an exactly same set of morals as another one, even if they have the same religious belief. As far as I know, the religious scriptures are merely the most basic and fundamental principles on behaviour (eg the Ten Commandments), laid down for the people to find their own intepretation. It is simply impossible and unfeasible to seek in them exact written guidance for every choice and behaviour, given the complexity of the society and the rapid changes that lie therein. Even in the religious communities, there are countless number of arguments on the interpretations of the same piece of holy scripture. The debates over the morality of abortion and polygamy comes into my mind.

Indeed, every individual has to live a life vastly different from another individual. Their upbringing, their cultural backgrounds, their environments: all contributes to a very unique set of thinking that help them to interpret the world (and the principles of their religions, if applicable). I believe that if one has been brought up in a proper manner (religious or not) to a well-adjusted adult; by incorporating the values from his beliefs, life experiences and conscience, he should be at least capable to form his own, unique set of moral code that can guide him to make rational judgements in different situations.

quote:

---

Going back to John Lennon's "imagine" ~ although he is quick to tell us that imagining no religion is "easy if you try", it quite clearly isn't. Religion is such a central part of everything, that removing it would result in a completely different existance to that which we know.

---

Ditto. Religion is such an influential enity that already has its roots lied deeply in the social constructions, daily behaviours, and even the cognitive thinking processes of many. At the same time, both its positive and negative effects have been exerting a significant degree of influence over the history of mankind. A world without religion could possibily be better as Lennon visioned, but could also become worse due to all the unexpected side effects. The only thing that is certain is that it wouldn't even be remotely similar to our current world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
Somehow I don't agree. Simply because we can see the cause and effects every day. Taking religion as guidance, then parents would be guidance to their children. And without this guidance, without anyone telling them what can and cannot be done, children tend to do anything they want with full disregard of morality, simply because they never even knew of its existence.

---

Well, I have been raised in an environment with minimal religious influence. I don't consider myself being particularly immoral or deranged (at least that's what I think ) when compared to those who go to the Church every Sunday. It may sound absurd to you if your upbringing was in a 100% religion-influenced environment. Yet is it really such a mission-impossible to teach a child morals without a Bible or a Koran?

For instance, if a child tries to bully his sister, a Christian parent may tell him that Jesus loved everyone and paid revenge to no one, so he should follow his example. A Muslim parent may as well quote some lines from the Koran and tells the child to do what Mohammad instructed. As for an atheist parent, he may simply assert that bullying is wrong and modify the child's behaviour by rewards and punishments (the behaviourist approach). Or he can use practical reasoning to discuss with the child on the issue, guide him to consider the undesirable feeling of being bullied, but leaves the final rational decision to him (the humanist approach).

Being adults with much life experiences, the parents should have good capability on reasoning and is able to explain the rights or wrongs without relying on an external authoritarian source. It is also not that hard to establish themselves as the authority if what they do is consistent with what they say, while what they say have enough convincing power. It isn't like they are going to give up teaching their children when there is no single holy scripture on their disposal.

Anyway, the route may differ, the reasoning may differ, but the ending result is pretty similar. You may be able to point out some defects in such way of education. But the religious way of upbringing also have their negative influences (the issue on critical thinking capability pops into my mind). There is simply nothing perfect in this world. Therefore parents should have the right to choose the way they are the most comfortable with.

__________________
My light novel review blog: ラノなの！@ novel.co.nr

@Jiji: Sorry, I think I misphrased that. I meant to say that the same way parents act as guidance to their children, religion acts as guidance to humanity.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

Quote from Jiji--------
What I am focusing on is the direct significance of religion over the arising of moralities. Feel free to have a hypothetical society with religion or not. But when religion fails to become a major factor in play, people will still derive moralities from alternate sources, from teachings of the wise men to the conscience, and will still be restricted by the authority of law. It isn't like a society without religion is equivalent to a society of nothing but raping and robberies. Nevertheless, what existed in the beginning has no relevance if it is unable to exert any influence at all to the scene in question.
-------
I completely agree with this point. At the moment there are a lot of people who do not believe in God but are kept in check by either their internal moral code or by fear of the law. Admittedly their moral code may be a result of relgious teaching they have aquired through schooling.

A quote I remember reading a quote from Voltaire "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." At the start of human conciousness whilst we were still nomadic peoples there would not be much to prevent people from killing or raping each other therefore the elders may, in the absence of any other threat, create the fear of Hell to keep people in order and protect the week.

Ps. In answer to previous questions, I currently live in County Down (Northern Ireland) and The theory I came up with about religion was when I was younger and was not in love. I now agree that living for eternity with the person I love would be bliss.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jiji
As far as I know, the religious scriptures are merely the most basic and fundamental principles on behaviour (eg the Ten Commandments), laid down for the people to find their own intepretation. It is simply impossible and unfeasible to seek in them exact written guidance for every choice and behaviour, given the complexity of the society and the rapid changes that lie therein. Even in the religious communities, there are countless number of arguments on the interpretations of the same piece of holy scripture.

---

Although that's true for most religions, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah, so it isn't the most basic guidance, it is the infallibe teaching for all of eternity. Most Muslims wouldn't debate the meaning of the Qur'an, as it is pointless ~ Allah's exact wording is the Qur'an, so disputing Allah's word would be disrespectful.

On the other hand, there are many other sources of authority for Muslims, so in a way, the Qur'an is not the only source of teaching. Muhammad's preaching is an example.

Andy Dainty; I'm glad you agree with my idea of heaven. The trouble is, there are people who never fall in love. Do they spend eternity with someone who never existed or someone they never met?? Would that still be heaven? There are problems with my idea of heaven...
In the Middle Ages, hell was very much used to scare people into Christianity. For a long time, the general public couldn't read the Bible, so priests could alter/ make up what the Bible said. Often, rich families would pay extortionate amounts of money for a priest to aid their lost one to reach heaven. This is impossible according to Ezekiel, who tells us that every soul will only be responsible for their own sins; nothing can alter that.

The chaplin at school has a daughter, and her daughter is not a Christian. One day at school, she got taught about hell. That night she ran to her mum (the chaplin) and accused her of not making her pray, because now the daughter thought she would go to hell...

However, the daughter still wants God to physically talk to her... so I don't think she is a Christian even now

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

Uh, okay... I think I have to clear some things up a little.

quote:

---

Although that's true for most religions, Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah, so it isn't the most basic guidance, it is the infallibe teaching for all of eternity. Most Muslims wouldn't debate the meaning of the Qur'an, as it is pointless ~ Allah's exact wording is the Qur'an, so disputing Allah's word would be disrespectful.

---

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
You don't debate, but you certainly do try to interpret the meaning. You're supposed to.

...Called Hadith...

---

Hadith ~ that's what it's called, thanks for reminding me

Yeah, this is one of the biggest troubles I have with Islam...

I don't believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, but the writings of inspired people. The Qur'an is suppposedly the direct word of Allah. If this is so, how come we can interpret it's meaning in different ways? If Allah wanted to give us an infallible source, with His word and will explined exactly, why did He make it so that it can be misunderstood?

So are all Muslim views and teachings from the Qur'an? Are none inspired by Allah through dreams or visions? What about hajj? Is that expressed in the Qur'an, or is it a Muslim tradition stemming from a non-Qur'an source???

If the meaning of the Qur'an is interpreted in different ways, than is "the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah" belief interpreted differently too?

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phyrra I don't believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, but the writings of inspired people. The Qur'an is suppposedly the direct word of Allah. If this is so, how come we can interpret it's meaning in different ways? If Allah wanted to give us an infallible source, with His word and will explined exactly, why did He make it so that it can be misunderstood?

---

The basics rules are all there. Some need more interpretation than others. And some require the leaders to interpret. After all, drugs weren't mentioned in the Quran, because they never existed then. But through interpretation of the ban on alcohol, drugs are simultaneously banned too, because they share the same properties as alcohol (loss of mind, endanger the human body, etc).

That sort of interpretation. Then there's the sentences where there are layers upon layers of meanings that can be extracted from, so different interpretations are bound to arise.

One of the major differences in interpretation is the law on males touching females. Before prayers, muslims are required to wash themselves, called ablution. According to the teachings of Imam Shafie, any skin contact between males and females cause the ablution to be void, taken word for word fro the Quran.

However, there are other teachings that see that particular sentence in a softer way. Imam Hanafi's teachings, I think. Supposedly, it should be interpreted as, as long as there exists no "chemistry" or feelings that develop during that contact, the ablution still stands (know how some men get turned on simply after brushing against other women? that kind of chemistry).

The reason given was the the Quran is a holy book, and no holy book should contain such lewd wordings, so God delivered it in a softer tone.

quote:

---

So are all Muslim views and teachings from the Qur'an? Are none inspired by Allah through dreams or visions? What about hajj? Is that expressed in the Qur'an, or is it a Muslim tradition stemming from a non-Qur'an source???

---

Those are rubbish. The only people God ever talks to are the prophets. All others are the devil.

The hajj is in the Quran, amongst one of the five pillars of Islam. The method of carrying it out is under hadith, or more precisely, following how our prophet has done it, hiim under guidance from God.

quote:

---

If the meaning of the Qur'an is interpreted in different ways, than is "the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah" belief interpreted differently too?

---

No. Well, depends on what you mean by it, anyway. Prophet Muhammad received the Quran through several stages and by several methods.

From what I learned and remembered, the mediums through which he received the Quran, amongst others, is through the angel Gabriel (or Jibril in Islam), and yes, through dreams. In cases where he receives it directly from God, the severity of it differs to (it's from God, after all). The lightest can be seen as similar to the light of dusk, while some are as heavy as the sound of the strike of a large gong. There is a story where the prophet was riding on a camel, and upon receiving, the camel was forced to sit on the ground, unable to rise. It is also said that at times, the prophet breaks into a sweat from the weight of God's words.

Or that's what I learned, anyway. Like I said before, I didn't exactly pass my exams with flying colours Especially not since I spend the other 6 days in the army then.

On a last note on interpreting the Quran, take note that in order to properly interpret it, you NEED to know the following:

-Arabic. The Quran is in arabic. Translations ALWAYS contain mistranslations, no matter how obscure.

-Knowledge of where and when that particular sentence was told to the prophet. importance being because some lines in the Quran was delivered to help the prophet in that situation, although it can also be applied in other ways.

-Knowledge of the related hadith and its meaning. The hadith is, after all, the interpretation of the Quran. if your interpretation is different from the hadith, then it's outright wrong.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

Post last edited by Roarkiller on 07.05.2006, 10:43 PM.

A Tale of a Tub

If any of you are interested in a cynical point of view in how the various religious texts can be interepreted I thoughily recommend Johnathan Swifts Tale of a Tub. It was written about the main splits in Christianity, whilst I was reading it I didn't fully understand all the references but I understood the metaphore of three Brothers representing 3 divisions of christianity (I think they were Catholic, Protestant and Presbyterian). The story then describes how the brothers chose to intepret the same passages differently for their own gain. As per Phyrra's comment on the Corrupt Priests in Middle Ages.

Phyrra, I have heard a definition of Heaven and Hell as the presence or absence of God. If, as we seem to agree, love is enough to keep us in a state of bliss for eternity; then being in the presence of God should be infinately greater than the love of a partner. Whilst the anguish caused by loosing a partner would be nothing compared to the horrific pain suffered when God's love is withdrawn and you are banished to Hell. This however is just one persons interpretation and I'm not sure if it is backed up by scripture but it does seem to cover the issue of Heaven for a person who has never discovered love.

Well, there are stories of people so in love with god they never fell in love with another human.

In any case, I don't believe Protestants existed then. I think it was after some guy posted his complaints on every church door, decades after the middle ages, that the Protestants came to existence.

Come to think of it, I never knew how the Presbytarians came about.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

This is such a great thread, so I thought I'd reply and show it to any new members who haven't seen it yet...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
Come to think of it, I never knew how the Presbytarians came about.

---

You probably forgot you even asked this now, but I'll try to answer it anyway...

I'm not too sure about the very first traces of presbytarianism, but I think it started in Scotland by John Knox, who was influenced by the ideas of Calvin, a theologist. Knox convinced the Scottish government to reform the Church. The word "presbytarian" comes from how the Churches were reformed with a "presbytarian" government, which is one where the Church is led by elders, who are all equal to the rest of the congregation. After time, this Scottish idea of how to organise the Church (presbytarianism) spread to England and Ireland, then on to America and beyond...

I belong to presbytarian church, so I think this is correct...

...it's not very intersting is it...

I thought I might add a question. Where do we make our moral decisions? Are they just made in the brain, or do our souls or hearts make them? What part of us decides what is right and wrong. Animals don't seem to be able to make moral decision unless they are taught right and wrong first... are humans different?

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

Post last edited by Phyrra on 07.28.2006, 06:10 AM.

Animals go by instinct. If they're hungry, they eat. If they're thirsty, the drink. If they see something they want, they take it.

Morals are taught, never inbred. In cases where people brought up in a violent environment steers away from violence, it's because he hates it, not because he believes it's morally wrong. In a way, it's like personal preference. He just finds out later that it's the generally accepted right moral.

So in response to the question, morals are taught, so it would be from the brain. The heart just starts to feel the same after being taught to do so for so long, and you think it's your heart feeling the morals.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

I believe that human beings do have a knowledge of what is right and wrong...

Sometimes, don't you get that feeling that something is wrong? Without actually having a logical thought process, some subconscious mumer whispers that you're doing something wrong?

I don't believe that animals have that at all. They have reflexes and are led totally by instinct and things they have learnt, not morals.

But perhaps belief in morals comes from humans asking why we are more intellegent than most animals, if not all other forms of life...

But the question I always ask is, if my morals are different to someone else's morals, then are some of my morals more wrong or right than other morals?

I bet that cconfused you all...

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

yes because i belive you get most of you morels from how your raised for example if someone is raised eating meat and onothe is raised as a vegaterian the vegitarion will think that killing animals for food is imoral where as the meat eater wont.

__________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by kittycatjess
yes because i belive you get most of you morels from how your raised for example if someone is raised eating meat and onothe is raised as a vegaterian the vegitarion will think that killing animals for food is imoral where as the meat eater wont.

---

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
On us being more intelligent, it's more of a perspective IMO. If we are supposedly more intelligent, then why are we on the path of self destruction? Wouldn't that make us less intelligent than animals?

---

__________________

Thanks to mpw3d who made ths amazing sig! The avatar was made by Sarah, from www.digik.net

I EAT NOOBS!!!

I'm a Christian
Hooray!

__________________
I EAT NOOBS!!