How would you explain that Reverent is important?

[Jeffrey H 25]

"So being respectful of God can mean we are respectful and work toward the application of our highest moral and ethical standards to be put into place on a daily level. We speak of God because otherwise we run the risk of making relative all that we hold dear. If morality is human in origin then it can be shifted to meet the needs of those in power and adjusted to fit the needs of the powerful."

Best answer I've seen on this discussion regarding reverence.  Thanks for sharing. 

[SSScout 1615]

Reallyreallyreally need a "Faith and Chaplaincy" Forum.

 

Your rabbi is very wise. I also like his explanation of the relatavistic quality of "human based" morality.

 

I forget where I read it, but here 'tis:

 

"After all our new technological advances, we still haven't invented any new sins after 2,000 years."

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I think a Faith and Chaplin section is a great idea. I know I always lobbied for the Scouts Own and Chaplin's Aide actually doing something at our Troop. When you get a good boy at this it is very inspirational.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

MattR writes:

We speak of God because otherwise we run the risk of making relative all that we hold dear. If morality is human in origin then it can be shifted to meet the needs of those in power and adjusted to fit the needs of the powerful. Such as slavery became a moral and ethical benefit according to the slaveholders.

 

This flies in the face of e.g. the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention, which split off in 1845 to preserve that god-ordained peculiar institution of slavery.

 

I take exactly the opposite view; it's important to recognize that morality IS human in origin. As Pascal put it, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." It's one way to absolve oneself of moral responsibility -- it's the same as "I was only following orders" but turned up to the highest degree.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Yet Pascal was a devout Catholic.

[Scoutfish 16]

Everybody sit down, hold onto your hat and maybe think about taking a drink:

 

I am completely with Merlyn with the idea and concept o morality and wghere it comes from.

 

 

Now, I do believe in God and I do have faith, but I personally know people who are agnosticm who are athiest and people who are ignorant of God in the true definition of ignorant in it's meaning of "Not aware of or having no concept of".

 

I know a person can be moralistic and have high morals without having a God or gods. I know a person such as Merlyn can be very moralistic in their behavior by showing care and compassion towards others.

 

Being moral is doing what you know and feel to be right, wether it helps your or even convicts you.

 

Sure, a great moral code probably echoes and is very similar to many religious morals.

 

But that doesn't mean you have to have God, a god or religion to be moral.

 

I think we might use our religions as an authority to our owm moral codes, but that does not make Merlyn immoral or without having morals because he does not believe in God.

 

It just means he is an athiest.

 

 

Personally, I think a combination of what alot of people said describes morals really well.

 

Same for reverence. What it means can mean many things to different peole. How it feels can only be felt by those who feel it.

 

What causes you to feel it is personal and individual.

 

Me? I can just look at clouds and feel a deep sense of reverence. I can't describe why, nor would attempt to, but just looking st clouds as the pass by and at the amazing textures, shapes and forms just feels me with a greatr feeling of reverence that I cannot even begin to describe.

 

 

[SSScout 1615]

Scoutfish: Been there, done that...

 

"The Humble, Meek, Merciful, Just Pious and Devout Souls, are everywhere of one Religion; and when Death has taken off the Mask, they will know one another, tho' the divers Liveries they wear here make them Strangers." #519

 

= William Penn = "Some Fruits of Solitude" 1682

[packsaddle 753]

I agree with Merlyn on the source of our morality.

I have long wondered why we would want something like 'morality' to be dictated to us, as opposed to thinking it through and understanding morality for ourselves.

 

Edit: I just took a quick look through this and also noted the various opinions on the whole 'God' thing: from clouds to sum total of whatever to invisible supernatural spirits. People....separated by a (an) (in common?) belief.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Posted: Saturday, 9/3/2011: 8:53:36 AM quality

I have long wondered why we would want something like 'morality' to be dictated to us, as opposed to thinking it through and understanding morality for ourselves.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Posted: Saturday, 9/3/2011: 8:53:36 AM quality

I have long wondered why we would want something like 'morality' to be dictated to us, as opposed to thinking it through and understanding morality for ourselves.

[packsaddle 753]

"Name one world leader you would want the world to follow morally the rest of you life."

Huh? Well DUH,...NO!! I think that was in my original observation, that part about being dictated to. Why do YOU advocate having to FOLLOW someone else's dictates? You're a smart person. Do you not trust your own ability to reason? Why would anyone advocate the thoughtless option if they're capable of thinking for themselves? You do understand that this is a 'libertarian' approach?

As for that never-changing part: re-read Leviticus and get back to me on those never-changing morals.

[Eagledad 2779]

I advocate everyone starting the discussion at the same place, which is with God. God is fair and just, so starting there starts us in the right direction.. That is why it doesnt work man, try as we might, we can't seem to get our self interest out of the mix.

 

As for the Leviticus reference, read Mathew for the updated version.

 

Barry

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Eagledad writes:

Gods laws don't change because he has no selfish desires that change with time.

 

Even if that's true, people simply don't agree what "god's laws" ARE. What people SAY are "god's law" change all the time.

 

And since gods NEVER show up to clarify things, all we EVER have are "what people SAY are god's laws."

 

And like I just said, THAT changes all the time.

 

I advocate everyone starting the discussion at the same place, which is with God. God is fair and just, so starting there starts us in the right direction.

 

People don't AGREE on which gods to start with. I'll start with the Code of Ur-Nammu (oldest legal code known), which is justified by his kingship bestowed by the gods An and Enlil to his father.

 

Kind of a mixed bag:

If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.

Eh, sucks.

If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.

A bit harsh, and has the unwanted side-effect that robbers will be more likely to kill their victims.

If a man has cut off another mans foot, he is to pay ten shekels.

This one seems too lenient, unless it's only for accidental maiming. About $153, assuming 1 shekel = 11 grams of silver

If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.

Sucks.

 

[Scoutfish 16]

" If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free.

Sucks "

 

SUCKS! I am laughing so hard it hurts! That was funny...I don't care who you are!

 

Maybe this is where I am different. I do not look towards our leaders - in this case a president or govenor - for moral leadership. I do not look to other people for family values either.

 

Thing is..if I need somebody else to point them out, I probably don't understand what they mean or how to follow them.

 

And while God's morals may never ever change, and while they may be the very standard of absolute perfection when ity comes to morals...the problem is, we got man's version of them.

 

We have what man wrote down in the way he understood and interpreted it. Look at the bible, how many times has it been translated and rewritten? Well, you gues is good as mine since I have not seen the original and couldn't read the language anyways.

 

Then look at the books of the Bible. They are what each of those people wrote down in their version of events.

 

Don't even get started about politics! And yes , there are politics invovled. That's man's nature.

 

And at one time, slavery and the owning of certain people was very moral.

 

So what changed with that?

 

PEOPLE! People discovering, realizing and becoming aware.

[qwazse 4344]

What changed with the Imperial slave trade was Wilberforce read his Bible and did what it said.

 

Where not some scribes meticulously transcribing their people's encounter over centuries with what seems to have been a very external yet unnervingly personal force, we may very well have been importing servants from our vanquished enemies today. Our sons would then bring their children to scout meetings to sing for unclaimed equipment! (There would probably be paperwork to file if an SM made the son of a slave owner sing for his pen-knife.)

 

Now was Wilberforce responding to the morality of humans, or of God? His writings tell us what *he* thought, yet you are more than welcome to come up with more material causes.

 

Regardless, that many men attribute their strength to do great things (somehow in opposition to the madness around them) to the work of The Spirit, that in itself is a cause for reverence.

 

I guess that means I'm siding with the Rabbi on that one.