Religion and Ethics - The topic of this USMB Discussion is an "oxymoron"

[Boss]

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

This is one of the more interesting stories in the Bible when you actually take the time to study what is going on rather than parsing out this single line and trying to make some irrelevant point that wasn't intended. It actually does more to contradict the OP's earlier statements regarding wealth and power than anything. So let's take it really slow for you dimwits...

Jesus is addressing his disciples who have asked him whether God wants them to pay their taxes to the Roman tax collector.... since Rome was persecuting them at the time and didn't condone their religious beliefs, the disciples felt it was a conflict of their interests to give their money to these people and they asked Jesus what to do.

So first, Jesus asks them... Who's picture is on the Roman coins? They replied, "Caesar's!" Then he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." His point... which apparently flies over your head... is that material wealth doesn't matter in the eyes of God. Give ALL your money with Caesar's picture on it to Caesar, it doesn't matter... it's just material wealth... you've got something GREATER and more valuable!

 

[BreezeWood]

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

This is one of the more interesting stories in the Bible when you actually take the time to study what is going on rather than parsing out this single line and trying to make some irrelevant point that wasn't intended. It actually does more to contradict the OP's earlier statements regarding wealth and power than anything. So let's take it really slow for you dimwits...

Jesus is addressing his disciples who have asked him whether God wants them to pay their taxes to the Roman tax collector.... since Rome was persecuting them at the time and didn't condone their religious beliefs, the disciples felt it was a conflict of their interests to give their money to these people and they asked Jesus what to do.

So first, Jesus asks them... Who's picture is on the Roman coins? They replied, "Caesar's!" Then he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." His point... which apparently flies over your head... is that material wealth doesn't matter in the eyes of God. Give ALL your money with Caesar's picture on it to Caesar, it doesn't matter... it's just material wealth... you've got something GREATER and more valuable!

.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

no no no - that is 4th century obfuscation of individuals value as free Spirits.

 

[Boss]

no no no - that is 4th century obfuscation of individuals value as free Spirits.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

 

[BreezeWood]

no no no - that is 4th century obfuscation of individuals value as free Spirits.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

why would that be ...

it was not unto Caesar they found at fault with the gal above.

 

[Boss]

no no no - that is 4th century obfuscation of individuals value as free Spirits.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

why would that be ...

it was not unto Caesar they found at fault with the gal above.

I'm really lost as to what point you're trying to make. I challenged the OP argument that religions are created by rulers who promise eternal salvation for those who do their killing for power and wealth. I have repeatedly admitted that religion is exploited by men of power to do nefarious things. That is not the fault of the religion nor was it why the religion was created.

If you wish to challenge what I've said you have to actually address what I've said. I don't believe Abraham is the person in this picture hoisting the "witch" into the flames during the origin of Abrahamic religions. I also don't believe this is Jesus showing his disciples how Christians should behave. If I am not mistaken, it is evidence of the aforementioned exploitation of religion which I have repeatedly admitted.

Again, the floor is certainly open for you to challenge something I've said... but it has to be a challenge to something I've actually said. I'm not defending things that are in your head that I didn't say.

 

[BreezeWood]

no no no - that is 4th century obfuscation of individuals value as free Spirits.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

.

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

why would that be ...

it was not unto Caesar they found at fault with the gal above.

I'm really lost as to what point you're trying to make. I challenged the OP argument that religions are created by rulers who promise eternal salvation for those who do their killing for power and wealth. I have repeatedly admitted that religion is exploited by men of power to do nefarious things. That is not the fault of the religion nor was it why the religion was created.

If you wish to challenge what I've said you have to actually address what I've said. I don't believe Abraham is the person in this picture hoisting the "witch" into the flames during the origin of Abrahamic religions. I also don't believe this is Jesus showing his disciples how Christians should behave. If I am not mistaken, it is evidence of the aforementioned exploitation of religion which I have repeatedly admitted.

Again, the floor is certainly open for you to challenge something I've said... but it has to be a challenge to something I've actually said. I'm not defending things that are in your head that I didn't say.

.

OP: You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

I challenged the OP argument that religions are created by rulers who promise eternal salvation for those who do their killing for power and wealth.

that was not a challenge to the OP but perhaps a later posting.

I have repeatedly admitted that religion is exploited by men of power to do nefarious things. That is not the fault of the religion nor was it why the religion was created.

this is a disagreement ... there has never been a distinction between religion and governance in their application. one has not superseded the other.

I don't believe Abraham is the person in this picture hoisting the "witch" into the flames during the origin of Abrahamic religions.

there you are again being disingenuous for something that has no origin, certainly not puritanical, the scribe is the one beneath the ladder they new perfectly well their objective. those also that converged in the late 4th century, as the OP so correctly describes.

I'll leave it at that ...

Too cryptic for me to decipher.

I seem to get more than my share of the above - from religionists, it is because when their same language is spoken by a Free Spirit they suddenly become victims of amnesia.

 

[Boss]

that was not a challenge to the OP but perhaps a later posting.

Uhm... "OP" stands for "original post" AND "original poster" dimwit.

 

[Boss]

this is a disagreement ... there has never been a distinction between religion and governance in their application. one has not superseded the other.

Sorry, one DOES supersede the other. A religion is completely separate from how a person or persons may interpret the religion. The fact that someone might misinterpret something you said doesn't mean you said what they misinterpreted.... your original statement supersedes what they interpreted. Are you REALLY this dense or is this an act?

 

[Boss]

there you are again being disingenuous for something that has no origin, certainly not puritanical, the scribe is the one beneath the ladder they new perfectly well their objective. those also that converged in the late 4th century, as the OP so correctly describes.

I'll leave it at that ...

And you're making a point I've already conceded. Men have often misappropriated religions for their own intentions. Is that the fault of the religion or of the people who misappropriated it? This is kind of like blaming crime on the law instead of the criminal. It just makes NO rational sense. Are you REALLY a senseless idiot? You sure do sound like it here.

 

[BreezeWood]

there you are again being disingenuous for something that has no origin, certainly not puritanical, the scribe is the one beneath the ladder they new perfectly well their objective. those also that converged in the late 4th century, as the OP so correctly describes.

I'll leave it at that ...

And you're making a point I've already conceded. Men have often misappropriated religions for their own intentions. Is that the fault of the religion or of the people who misappropriated it? This is kind of like blaming crime on the law instead of the criminal. It just makes NO rational sense. Are you REALLY a senseless idiot? You sure do sound like it here.

.

Are you REALLY a senseless idiot?

we may ask the same of you -

you pretend the absolute religion exists and has always existed and is abused by certain people that did not posses a previous interpretation than the only one you claim has always existed ... there is no religion that predates to a puritanical period someone then chose to misuse - got it. there is no distinction.

the unknown, excluding myself, puritanical religion does exist, it just has not yet been made a part of the public domain - got it

you can not abuse what does not exist - got it.

 

[Boss]

we may ask the same of you -

you pretend the absolute religion exists and has always existed and is abused by certain people that did not posses a previous interpretation than the only one you claim has always existed ... there is no religion that predates to a puritanical period someone then chose to misuse - got it. there is no distinction.

the unknown, excluding myself, puritanical religion does exist, it just has not yet been made a part of the public domain - got it

you can not abuse what does not exist - got it.

I've not said anything about "puritanical" or "absolute" anything.

The fact that a religion exists and people have misappropriated it and exploited it, isn't the fault of the religion itself, it's the fault of the exploiter. We have laws against stealing... if someone steals something and doesn't get caught, is that because the law against stealing is wrong?

 

[BreezeWood]

we may ask the same of you -

you pretend the absolute religion exists and has always existed and is abused by certain people that did not posses a previous interpretation than the only one you claim has always existed ... there is no religion that predates to a puritanical period someone then chose to misuse - got it. there is no distinction.

the unknown, excluding myself, puritanical religion does exist, it just has not yet been made a part of the public domain - got it

you can not abuse what does not exist - got it.

I've not said anything about "puritanical" or "absolute" anything.

The fact that a religion exists and people have misappropriated it and exploited it, isn't the fault of the religion itself, it's the fault of the exploiter. We have laws against stealing... if someone steals something and doesn't get caught, is that because the law against stealing is wrong?

.

The fact that a religion exists and people have misappropriated it and exploited it, isn't the fault of the religion itself, it's the fault of the exploiter. We have laws against stealing... if someone steals something and doesn't get caught, is that because the law against stealing is wrong?

there is agreement, the disagreement is you prefer to give a religion a puritanical beginning that becomes abused where the truth is there is no beginning point and the abuse is relative - the desert religions have always been abusive no mater when or by who. ... that is in line with the OP that I agree with. were there a puritanical religion being abused I would then give bossy the benefit of the doubt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

Hi RWS
Doesn't it depend on what your religion or beliefs are?

Look at your own ethics.

You are saying you would put ethics first before religion.

If they contradict then ethics trumps what your religion says to do.

So that is your belief, and it shows it is compatible with ethics!

The problem I think you are pointing out is: where is the collective religion based on these ethics?

The answer has been that people use different means of expressing the secular ethics: some use Buddhism some use Constitutional ethics. Others use psychology or social sciences or common sense

So what your grievance is: there isn't one religion like Christianity or Islam that people can collectively identify with who share the same common ethics you would enforce.

 

[Boss]

there is agreement, the disagreement is you prefer to give a religion a puritanical beginning that becomes abused where the truth is there is no beginning point and the abuse is relative - the desert religions have always been abusive no mater when or by who. ... that is in line with the OP that I agree with. were there a puritanical religion being abused I would then give bossy the benefit of the doubt.

Again, I've asked this question that no one wants to answer, what religion was created by a ruler with the promise of salvation in return for killing people in the name of power and wealth, as the OP claimed? I will ADD to that, for your benefit, give us an example of a religion that was originated without purity of thought or intention? Even the Muslim religion, which has been the most exploited and misappropriated of the Abrahamic religions, had a "puritanical" beginning.

The fact that the religion is hijacked, abused, exploited or misappropriated is not the fault of the religion itself. It is evidence that man is fallible and these deeds are done by flawed people.

 

[Boss]

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

Hi RWS
Doesn't it depend on what your religion or beliefs are?

Look at your own ethics.

You are saying you would put ethics first before religion.

If they contradict then ethics trumps what your religion says to do.

So that is your belief, and it shows it is compatible with ethics!

The problem I think you are pointing out is: where is the collective religion based on these ethics?

The answer has been that people use different means of expressing the secular ethics: some use Buddhism some use Constitutional ethics. Others use psychology or social sciences or common sense

So what your grievance is: there isn't one religion like Christianity or Islam that people can collectively identify with who share the same common ethics you would enforce.

He is making an argument that religion is unnecessary and ethics are natural. I disagree that ethics are natural and religion might not be necessary but all true human ethics stem from human spirituality. I refuted his argument on Page 1 and made my case as well. He has avoided the challenge posed and chosen to attack me instead. I surmise this is because he can't counter my refutation or my argument to the contrary.

Breeze has recently chimed in with his usual cryptic rhetoric, trying to make an argument out of a point already conceded, that man often exploits religion for his own selfish purposes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks Boss

Dear Boss and RWS:
1. How are you defining "religion" where it is necessarily corrupt and abused?
2. Isn't it better to target RELIGIOUS ABUSE as the problem and not religion?
3. for comparison RWS I use the term "religion" to mean the LANGUAGE and cultural tradition
of people of a like belief system. There is as much good if not better that comes from Buddhism,
Christianity, Constitutionalism and "religions" or "belief systems" INTENDED for good; although
ABUSE comes from ANY collective system due to flaws in humanity including our own selfish interests
that multiple when you are dealing with LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
4. If you are going to get rid of religion because of "collective abuse'should we
also get rid of
Government which is abused collectively though it is intended for good
Corporations which are abused
Any collective entity or organization where the numbers alone lead to abuse

So my question to you is what are you having the problem with
* the collective numbers of people all blindly following a religious authority?
is that what you are against?
* and how is that different from people abused by
govt or other corporate institutions that oppress people en masse
where collective authority resources or influece are ABUSED

Why would you target religion more than any other type of collective group?

Isn't it the ABUSE you are against
whether this is religious abuse of church authority
or political abuse of govt authority?

COMPARE: political parties are based on political BELIEFS
RWS are you equally saying to get rid of POLITICAL PARTIES
because they become abusive like religious ideologies?

Aren't political parties WORSE because they manipulate govt and laws that are MANDATORY.
why would you go after RELIGIONS unless you also include POLITICAL PARTIES and Corporate abuse of govt?
Aren't legal and govt abuses WORSE because the courts can MANDATE AND FORCE people by law
into compliance while religions don't have this LEGAL authority to FORCE AND COERCE people
even where their power gets abusive. With religions you can choose to leave, but you can't get out
from legal or corporate abuse of govt once it leads to decisions that become LEGALLY BINDING.\

Boss can you help me with this?
Do you see what I am asking: why target religion and what about political and corporate abuse of govt.
Shouldn't that mean we get rid of parties if they abuse people by POLITICAL beliefs if we are going to target religious abuses?

Religion and Ethics....

You can have one, but not both.

You're either on the side of religions, which advocate very unethical things...

Or you're on the side of ethics and morals, which makes you doubt religions and the evil things they want and do...

It's an oxymoron... Which is why we're pitted here in endless arguments.

But I will tell you right now that ethics is way more important than belief in an imaginary god. And you don't need people to tell you how to follow your ethics or morals either. They are part of you. Anybody trying to tell you they're not, is selling something.

If you still need someone to tell you how to follow your morals in this day and age of knowledge and enlightenment, then you are ripe to be taken advantage of, and part of the problem in this world.

Hi RWS
Doesn't it depend on what your religion or beliefs are?

Look at your own ethics.

You are saying you would put ethics first before religion.

If they contradict then ethics trumps what your religion says to do.

So that is your belief, and it shows it is compatible with ethics!

The problem I think you are pointing out is: where is the collective religion based on these ethics?

The answer has been that people use different means of expressing the secular ethics: some use Buddhism some use Constitutional ethics. Others use psychology or social sciences or common sense

So what your grievance is: there isn't one religion like Christianity or Islam that people can collectively identify with who share the same common ethics you would enforce.

He is making an argument that religion is unnecessary and ethics are natural. I disagree that ethics are natural and religion might not be necessary but all true human ethics stem from human spirituality. I refuted his argument on Page 1 and made my case as well. He has avoided the challenge posed and chosen to attack me instead. I surmise this is because he can't counter my refutation or my argument to the contrary.

Breeze has recently chimed in with his usual cryptic rhetoric, trying to make an argument out of a point already conceded, that man often exploits religion for his own selfish purposes.

 

[Boss]

Boss can you help me with this?
Do you see what I am asking: why target religion and what about political and corporate abuse of govt.
Shouldn't that mean we get rid of parties if they abuse people by POLITICAL beliefs if we are going to target religious abuses?

I see what you are trying to say and I don't necessarily disagree, however, this is not the point RWS is trying to get across. No one is "targeting" religion, that's the topic of the OP. We are debating whether "religious ethics" is an oxymoron. RWS thinks it is, I think it's not.

Before you can have governments and corporations, you must first establish civilized and ethical society. RWS, I assume, believes civilization is just a natural evolution process. I believe civilization stems from humanity enlightened with spiritual connection. Without our spiritual connection we would have never become civilized or developed ethical standards thus we would never have formed governments and corporations.

My evidence is nature itself. You don't see any upper primates forming civilizations or ethical standards. They lack that spiritual connection or a comprehension of it. This is exclusive to humans just as spirituality is.

 

[RWS]

Well thanks for this sudden proclamation!!!! Your God supersedes religion?!? And has no use for man? You know the ultimate God?!?

Wow?!?

Dude, what are you doing on a thread arguing that religions and morals have no place together?

Stop being a dick and trying to make stupid arguments that you won't back up and don't really believe in. You must be related to the other dickwad...

And you said I was trolling?!?

I can go on any thread I want to, shitstain. You don't get to tell me to leave because I'm exposing your inaccuracies and idiocy. I've backed up all my arguments, you refuse to answer any questions about yours. For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

Sorry if you think I'm being a dick but honestly, who do you think you're convincing if you can't make your case with a non-Christian who isn't religious?

.

For instance, who are these rulers who created religions? Where is this religious doctrine or dogma that preaches the importance of material wealth and power?

"The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a Christian Bible. Which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in the wake of the Protestant Reformation at the Council of Trent (1546), which provided "the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon" by the Roman Catholic Church.[2] The canons of the Church of England and ..."


4th century christianity is a political agenda disguised as a religion - superimposed on the religion and events of the 1st century ...

Still, you are talking about a misappropriation of a religion. I've already stated that tyrants and kings have often exploited religion for whatever reasons. Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such. You're supposed to be finding me an example of a religion created by a ruler and religious doctrine which promotes material wealth and personal power.

.

Their perversions of the religion are not the religion, nor were the religions created as such.

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension - your only saving grace is the ineptitude in the construction of their 10,000 pg document but not so their intent.

My comprehension is fine, it's yours that's having a problem. My saving grace is that I'm not trying to cram a square peg into a round hole like you are. The point has already been acknowledged several times that rulers and tyrants often exploit religion for their own intentions. Inept or not, they misappropriate the text of the gospels in order to justify things the gospels don't intend. You trying to make this point that has already been established is a bit pathetic and obtuse. Trying to turn it into some sort of counter to my point is just plain dishonest.

Now, if you just want to continue being pathetic, obtuse and dishonest, that's fine with me... but my comprehension isn't the problem here.

That is what religion is. A corrupt ruler or tyrant exploiting the beliefs of the people for their own intentions.

The people that still follow that ruler are equally guilty as the ruler/tyrant. They are the religious followers, and the reason the shit still happens today.

I don't understand what part of that you don't get.

The three major OT religions today got here on that premise, and still exploit their people in the same way they have done in the past.

The original "good" intentions are long gone. Unless you want to talk about secret societies. Followers of the modern Judeo/Christian religions are worshiping evil, unmoral, and unethical things. They are a very warped lot.

 

[RWS]

Hi Emily, when a ruler abuses the faith of people, and the people still follow him/her, they are equally as guilty as the ruler for the actions they do.

That is how Judaism, Islam, and Christianity came to take power. And others as well, but right now I'm only talking about the holy trinity.

They didn't gain their power through truthfulness and ethics. They gained their power by killing, raping, and torturing anybody who thought differently.

Those are the religions that exist today. And a follower of that religion, also must realize the evils it took to get them there.

Now, I know you are a very good-natured soul. I know you don't hold evil in your heart. But if you follow the religion, you ultimately have to let go of that good nature, when the poop hits the fan again, and it will. Are you willing to kill once commanded? Because that's what following the religion means...

Or you can just be a person of faith, and not follow the herd when commanded. And figure things out on your own.

 

[RWS]

I mean, think about it...

Some Popes have recently apologized for the evils Christianity committed in order to gain power, and it took well over 1000 years for them to even admit those evils.

But they didn't change the religion and forbid these things in the future. They just said they were past transgressions and should be forgiven. The religion itself remains the same.

So if the religion says to do it again... then there is nothing to stop followers from doing it again...