Another interesting article from Scoutmaster's Blog on FB; Belief structures

[ghjim 76]

People judge the moral actions of others by their own moral measuring stick. I have a feeling your comment is less about morality of others and more about your personal biases.

 

This discussion went way off track. The point I was making is that in the BSA, it doesn't matter where one gets their morals so long as they can eventually track it back to a higher power. Once atheist (man) becomes the root source of the BSA values of behavior, it can no longer be a values program because man doesn't have a behavior source of reference. 

 

Why is your God a better behavioral source of reference than Merlyn's empathy with fellow human beings?

[Stosh 3452]

Some things remain a constant, other things are fickle and change to suit one's agenda.

 

I think there's a better track record for constant reliability than fickle winds of change.  I seriously don't think anyone's empathy is a reliable source to put one's trust in.

[David CO 1783]

I'm going to take Gumbymaster at his word in that he is sincerely trying to understand.

 

Religion is a jigsaw puzzle with half of the pieces missing.  I don't claim to have all the pieces of the puzzle, and I don't claim to be able to see the whole picture, but I am absolutely certain that the pieces I have are true.

 

It is pointless for you to argue to me that any of my puzzle pieces are untrue.

 

It is human nature for people to use their imaginations to fill in the empty spaces in the jigsaw puzzle.  In fact, it takes great patience and discipline to avoid doing so.  

 

If you are interested in the great puzzle, I have a few words of encouragement and advise.

 

Don't remove any pieces from the board.  

 

Don't add any new pieces.

 

Enjoy working the puzzle.  You were never intended to complete it.

[Eagledad 2779]

What I personally fail to grasp, and I meant that sincerely, is the position of some of our fellows that a "God given" moral code is timeless and unwavering whereas a code of man is too malable.  From my philosophy courses, I recall that this revolves around the difference in morals, and moreys (I think).  The harder part for me is, I guess, If one were to believe in a diety God, to the exclusion of all other possibilities, then I get that the rules that you have learned from that God's religeon are (largely) unwavering.  But this argument seems to crumble if you can accept that other people's Gods may not share that same absolute code; and thus the code is no longer universal, but also malable to the different beliefs of religeous groups.

Good post, and good question. The answer is complicated, but one small part of that answer for me is that most religions teach how their followers are to behave toward those with different beliefs. Exactly the same as the Scout Oath and Law guides scouts. Scouts may not respect what a person believes, but their actions show respect for the person. When you see disrespectful actions toward someone, likely someone is doing it wrong as directed by their God.

 

Sadly we live in a time when many people of faith don't know their god because they don't take time to learn. Some of the most vicious and cruel comments at Christians on this forum during recent debates came from those who claim to be Christian. I know this has little to do with the discussion, but I personally wonder how anyone can be a model of the Scout Law when they can't model the very same actions directed by God. 

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Regardless of it's origin, the 10 Commandments pretty much sum up the minimum requirements for civilization.  The only time problems arise is when one can trace back to one of these commandments and it not being adhered to.

 

I disagree.  The 10 commandments don't say anything to oppose slavery, and rape is only covered because women were considered property.

[Peregrinator 85]

women were considered property.

What a weird statement.

[DuctTape 1230]

Some things remain a constant, other things are fickle and change to suit one's agenda.

 

I think there's a better track record for constant reliability than fickle winds of change.  I seriously don't think anyone's empathy is a reliable source to put one's trust in.

I disgree with the last sentence. Empathy is a great source. Like those who choose to ignore their god's command, there are those who choose to act in opposition to that which they know they should. This doesnt make the source unreliable, it means humans choose whether to follow their moral compass. Even without god, the compass can point the right direction. One still has the choice to follow it.

[Eagledad 2779]

Even without god, the compass can point the right direction. One still has the choice to follow it.

Hmm, without god, how does one know the right direction?

 

Barry

[Peregrinator 85]

Hmm, without god, how does one know the right direction?

Whatever one's fellow human beings believe at that point in time, as long as their beliefs also align with one's own.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

What a weird statement.

 

I agree, but they were, listed right along with all the other things owned by your neighbor that you shouldn't covet, like his slaves and animals.

[Eagledad 2779]

Whatever one's fellow human beings believe at that point in time, as long as their beliefs also align with one's own.

Ahh, it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. 

[Peregrinator 85]

I agree, but they were, listed right along with all the other things owned by your neighbor that you shouldn't covet, like his slaves and animals.

So a statement like the following implies that children are property?

 

"Do not attack my children or my property."

 

Or are you saying that if women weren't property, it would be OK to covet them?

[DuctTape 1230]

Hmm, without god, how does one know the right direction?

 

Barry

So you are saying you don't know the difference between right and wrong without someone telling you? Empathy, compassion, caring, love for one another is part of being human. I know the right thing to do without an external source.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So a statement like the following implies that children are property?

 

"Do not attack my children or my property."

 

Or are you saying that if women weren't property, it would be OK to covet them?

 

No, I'm saying the 10 commandments considers women as property.  It's pointless to use English to argue what the commandments mean as they weren't written in it.

[Peregrinator 85]

No, I'm saying the 10 commandments considers women as property.  It's pointless to use English to argue what the commandments mean as they weren't written in it.

So I can't use English to determine what an English translation of the 10 Commandments means?

 

Since you're a Hebrew scholar would you mind giving a more literal translation of the 10 Commandments?