10 things Atheists and Christians agree on

[Woodruff]

Well, of course, That's why the debate is over.

The debate which I WON.

On Bumpage everyone's a winner!

You socialists are all alike. <evil grin>

[Woodruff]

Because, obviously, blind faith is always essential to understand a logical position which depends upon reason.

I myself do not possess blind faith. Which is a belief in something without the benefit of concrete evidence that the belief is true. I have plenty, dare I say a plethora, of evidence.

So not only do you not understand the flow of logic, you also don't understand what the term "concrete evidence" means.

Belief in God does nothing for the soul unless there is faith.

Belief in God is IMPOSSIBLE without faith. Geez.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Yes, war, revenge and domination... all "fundamental pillars of civilization" Exactly what Al-Qaeda is saying right now!

Ok, easy now.
Caveman X catches fish. Caveman Y steals fish. Tribe frowns on Caveman Y's behavior because it's easier to steal fish but if everyone does it tribe starves. Caveman Y is punished, to deter him and others from stealing fish.

How do we go from that to Al-Qaeda?

You say this as if they are mutually exclusive ideas, but they are not. One of Jesus' tenets was that we bow to government rule. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that rot.

But if we all forgave the guy for his crime how would it make sense to still punish him "because government says so". Is not government supposed to represent us, our views?

I'm also pretty sure that Jesus was against killing, so finding punishment for such a person would still fit into that scheme.

I assume Jesus was also against slapping people in the face, yet he advocates forgiving those and offering them another chance to mistreat you. Why would this not also apply to more serious offenses?

I don't claim to know much about Jesus' morals, just what's popularly known. If I'm misunderstanding any of this please let me know.

[daddy1gringo]

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

[PLAYER57832]

I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

I'm assuming you mean more of "loosely inspired by his morals" than really based on them.

For instance what's your take on "turning the other cheek"? Punishing an individual for behavior that's damaging to a society seems to me like one of the fundamental pillars of civilization.

Yes, war, revenge and domination... all "fundamental pillars of civilization" Exactly what Al-Qaeda is saying right now!

Ok, easy now.
Caveman X catches fish. Caveman Y steals fish. Tribe frowns on Caveman Y's behavior because it's easier to steal fish but if everyone does it tribe starves. Caveman Y is punished, to deter him and others from stealing fish.

How do we go from that to Al-Qaeda?

For some reason I read it as "revenge"
Looks like I misunderstood/misread a post twice in one day .. Woodruff's and yours. Though in your case, not quite as badly.


Let me be clear that I am not against personal defense and I am not against all war. I am definitely not against containing those who threaten society.

The problem, though, comes when you move from "containment" to "punishment". The line between "punishment" and "revenge" is too easily crossed. Then you wind up creating resentment in the friends and relatives of the victim, who, in turn see the need to exact their own revenge... etc. That is the link to Al Qaeda. The problem with them, the reason they are so dangerous is that they truly believe they are fighting for their people's survival.

You say this as if they are mutually exclusive ideas, but they are not. One of Jesus' tenets was that we bow to government rule. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that rot.

But if we all forgave the guy for his crime how would it make sense to still punish him "because government says so". Is not government supposed to represent us, our views?

I'm also pretty sure that Jesus was against killing, so finding punishment for such a person would still fit into that scheme.

I assume Jesus was also against slapping people in the face, yet he advocates forgiving those and offering them another chance to mistreat you. Why would this not also apply to more serious offenses?

I don't claim to know much about Jesus' morals, just what's popularly known. If I'm misunderstanding any of this please let me know.

This is a disagreement within Christianity. The Mennonites, Hutterites, others take the "no violance" literally.

However, there is another perspective. If you stand and let someone kill your child or neighbor without intervening, then you are, in a sense an accessory to that act. For that reason, some will say that defense is sensible. Sometimes defense of others and not yourself (rare, but it exists). Others expand this. Most famous is St Augustine's "just war" arguments. There have been several threads on this already, so I won't go into that further.

[PLAYER57832]

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

But most Christians contend that Christ rewrote that "eye for an eye" bit in the penal code, or at least limited it very severely.

[Woodruff]

You say this as if they are mutually exclusive ideas, but they are not. One of Jesus' tenets was that we bow to government rule. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and all that rot.

But if we all forgave the guy for his crime how would it make sense to still punish him "because government says so". Is not government supposed to represent us, our views?

Once again, you are trying to take an individual's views and apply them society-wide. That simply doesn't work in ANY case. In other words, you're really trying way too hard.

I'm also pretty sure that Jesus was against killing, so finding punishment for such a person would still fit into that scheme.

I assume Jesus was also against slapping people in the face, yet he advocates forgiving those and offering them another chance to mistreat you. Why would this not also apply to more serious offenses?

Once again, you are trying to take an individual's views and apply them society-wide. That simply doesn't work in ANY case. In other words, you're really trying way too hard.

I don't claim to know much about Jesus' morals, just what's popularly known. If I'm misunderstanding any of this please let me know.

You appear to me to be intentionally trying to force personal beliefs into societal actions which, quite frankly, doesn't even make basic sense.

[daddy1gringo]

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

But most Christians contend that Christ rewrote that "eye for an eye" bit in the penal code, or at least limited it very severely.

Ehhh, sounds to me like he's just talking about one's personal actions and attitudes.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Once again, you are trying to take an individual's views and apply them society-wide. That simply doesn't work in ANY case.

So you are saying that your personal view works only if the majority of the other people hold an opposing view?

When i think of moral rules i think: "If almost everyone acted according to this rule, how would society look like?".
So my previous statements where based on that presumption, "If almost everyone "turned the other cheek", how would the world look like?"

In other words, you're really trying way too hard.

The only thing I'm trying to do is understand and, maybe, develop a more robust moral framework for myself. I know too little about this subject to be trying to convince anyone of anything.

Yes, i know this may come as a shock, but ... get ready for it ... on this particular occasion, someone is actually talking in a morality/religion thread WITHOUT claiming to have a monopoly on truth.

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

Hmm, so you are saying something like: "Even though i forgive you for trying to steal my TV, and if it were up to me i would give you my dvd player as well, i believe it is in the greater interest of society that we discourage theft, therefore I am going to call the police and get you arrested" ?

That would make more sense to me, but it still seems a little odd. What so there are two opposing forces, what you want to do (forgive everyone) and what you feel you have to do(maintain order in society)?
Why wouldn't you just blend the two and simply want to take the action which is most beneficial for society?

[AAFitz]

Belief in God does nothing for the soul unless there is faith.

What is faith?

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1)

That is also the clinical definition of a paranoid delusion.

[daddy1gringo]

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

Hmm, so you are saying something like: "Even though i forgive you for trying to steal my TV, and if it were up to me i would give you my dvd player as well, i believe it is in the greater interest of society that we discourage theft, therefore I am going to call the police and get you arrested" ?

That would make more sense to me, but it still seems a little odd. What so there are two opposing forces, what you want to do (forgive everyone) and what you feel you have to do(maintain order in society)?
Why wouldn't you just blend the two and simply want to take the action which is most beneficial for society?

I don't look at it that way. It's more that they are in 2 different spheres.

Forgiving a person isn't necessarily what you want to do, it's something you have to bring yourself to do in order to get free of the bitterness and move on with your life. What you want to do at first is to pound the stuffing out of them, then, if and when you decide what you really want is to be free, you work through the anger and forgive.

The penal code is more of a right/wrong kind of thing.

For instance, I know of cases where the family of a murder victim has forgiven the murderer, who has been given the death sentence. I have heard of cases where they try to have the sentence pardoned, and other cases where they just seek to tell him that they forgive him before he goes. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

In a sort of related issue, sometimes a murderer who repents and becomes a Christian seeks to get out of the penalty on the basis that he's not the same person any more. I always regard that with a bit of skepticism, not just because it might just be a ruse, but because even if it is real, your faith and forgiveness are between you and God, and doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to the legal consequences here on earth. (Besides, if he really believes he is forgiven and saved, he's going to heaven, so what's to avoid? Here on earth he could never get away from the fact that he killed someone. In heaven it is gone.)

Forgiveness is between the forgiver and the forgiven, whether it is God or the victim. Punishment for a crime is a different issue, and involves more people.

[Skoffin]

I was lost at point number 1.

[PLAYER57832]

I think some of the confusion is because we're talking about 2 different things. "Turn the other cheek" is about (not) holding a personal grudge and taking personal revenge. "An eye for an eye" is about a penal code, administered by an impartial authority for the good of society. As Woodruff said, they're not mutually exclusive. That also clears up the common misconception that "an eye for an eye" justifies revenge.

Hmm, so you are saying something like: "Even though i forgive you for trying to steal my TV, and if it were up to me i would give you my dvd player as well, i believe it is in the greater interest of society that we discourage theft, therefore I am going to call the police and get you arrested" ?

That would make more sense to me, but it still seems a little odd. What so there are two opposing forces, what you want to do (forgive everyone) and what you feel you have to do(maintain order in society)?
Why wouldn't you just blend the two and simply want to take the action which is most beneficial for society?

I don't look at it that way. It's more that they are in 2 different spheres.

Forgiving a person isn't necessarily what you want to do, it's something you have to bring yourself to do in order to get free of the bitterness and move on with your life. What you want to do at first is to pound the stuffing out of them, then, if and when you decide what you really want is to be free, you work through the anger and forgive.

The penal code is more of a right/wrong kind of thing.

For instance, I know of cases where the family of a murder victim has forgiven the murderer, who has been given the death sentence. I have heard of cases where they try to have the sentence pardoned, and other cases where they just seek to tell him that they forgive him before he goes. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

In a sort of related issue, sometimes a murderer who repents and becomes a Christian seeks to get out of the penalty on the basis that he's not the same person any more. I always regard that with a bit of skepticism, not just because it might just be a ruse, but because even if it is real, your faith and forgiveness are between you and God, and doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to the legal consequences here on earth. (Besides, if he really believes he is forgiven and saved, he's going to heaven, so what's to avoid? Here on earth he could never get away from the fact that he killed someone. In heaven it is gone.)

Forgiveness is between the forgiver and the forgiven, whether it is God or the victim. Punishment for a crime is a different issue, and involves more people.

While I understand your last sentence, I am not sure I understand or agree with your logic here.

Forgiveness is, in large part, about us and our reaction, true. That is not all it is. It also allows us to live together with people who have caused us harm, but not enough harm to force us to exclude or kill them from society.

However, I see the penal code quite differently. The Biblical penal code might have been, in part, about "right and wrong" (in part it was about practicalities, and preventing conflicts, though a lot of that nuance was lost by the time of Jesus). Sort of like today, in the U.S. we drive on the right, in Britain they still drive on the left. Is one "morally superior" ? Pundits aside , no. However, is there a severe punishment for driving on the wrong side? Is this therefore a firmly held rule? YES! In fact, in some ways, punishment for violating this practical law might be heavier than punishments for violating a true "moral" law such as "don't steal", because the damage caused by someone driving on the wrong side of the road can be pretty severe, whereas the "damage" caused by stealing, say, a pack of gum, is pretty minimal. Or, to take a more serious opposite example, adultry is absolutely considered wrong by the Bible, but is not proscribed by secular law, because it is not considered harmful to society as a whole, (just to those involved).

The penal code, both in the Bible and without, then, is not really about morals, it is about control and containment. Laws are like fences that help us all to know boundaries of behavior.. whether that behavior is moral or not is another question. So, too, must punishment be.

In the Old Testament, the two -- legal niceties, morality and punishments, were essentially contained in one. However, this caused problems. Jews have solved some conflicts, did solve/figure out some prior to Jesus. However, their tactic -- to detail each and every minutia led to what Jesus saw as an actual violation of the law -- people so worried about the "letter" of the law, they forgot the "spirit" of the law.

This is why Christ came in and told us both that he came to fulfill the law and that he put 2 rules above all others --- "love thy God and love they neighbor as thyself". Because if you truly do those 2 things, everything else naturally falls into place. The trouble is, humans often have trouble figuring out how to do that, exactly what "loving thy neighbor", particularly really means. To jay, excluding certain people who commit certain sins, such as homosexuality and other issues, from most of society is "loving", becuase anything else is "encouraging" the bad behavior. To me, it is the exclusion that is hateful and more likely to drive people who sin from God. We disagree, but both read the Bible. Rules help us wind our way through. Unfortunately, people still, today, too often want to follow just the letter of the law and ignore the spirit, or twist what "honoring the spirit" might mean.

In secular law, that whole issue of right and wrong has no place because we are a society of different values and beliefs. In many cases, there is a merging (incest is wrong), but not always. (is homosexuality wrong?-- depends on your beliefs) Secular law is about containment and compensation. Someone who does another harm should repay that person to the extent possible. However, in some cases that is not possible. Also, some crimes are just so terrible that people simply cannot be allowed to exist within society.

I would suggest that a big problem with our current penal code is that it tends too often to mix up those issues. We lock people up to "teach them a lesson", but in truth make few provisions to really and truly "teach" them much of anything good. In fact, too often young people go into the penal system and come out far worse individuals than they were when they went in. There are exceptions, but they have more to do with individuals and individual initiative, not anything inherent in the penal system. So, it fails all around .. it does not truly punish in a just way, contain from society in a safe way or teach people to be better.

[Woodruff]

Once again, you are trying to take an individual's views and apply them society-wide. That simply doesn't work in ANY case.

So you are saying that your personal view works only if the majority of the other people hold an opposing view?

No. I'm saying it's entirely unrealistic to expect that it MUST.

When i think of moral rules i think: "If almost everyone acted according to this rule, how would society look like?".
So my previous statements where based on that presumption, "If almost everyone "turned the other cheek", how would the world look like?"

But you see, your previous statements WEREN'T based on that presumption, because "if everyone acted according to these rules" then there wouldn't BE the sorts of crimes like murder that you discuss. You see what I'm getting at?

I realize you said "almost everyone", but I cannot be held responsible for anyone's actions but my own.

Yes, i know this may come as a shock, but ... get ready for it ... on this particular occasion, someone is actually talking in a morality/religion thread WITHOUT claiming to have a monopoly on truth.

Well there'll be NONE OF THAT, MISTER! <grin>

[PLAYER57832]

There is one time when we can all be sure we have the truth.. it is when we day "I don't know"

[tzor]

Well, of course, That's why the debate is over.

The debate which I WON.

On Bumpage everyone's a winner!

You socialists are all alike. <evil grin>

I try to be very social on Bumpage; I even only drink socially!

[Haggis_McMutton]

I don't look at it that way. It's more that they are in 2 different spheres.

Forgiving a person isn't necessarily what you want to do, it's something you have to bring yourself to do in order to get free of the bitterness and move on with your life. What you want to do at first is to pound the stuffing out of them, then, if and when you decide what you really want is to be free, you work through the anger and forgive.

The penal code is more of a right/wrong kind of thing.

For instance, I know of cases where the family of a murder victim has forgiven the murderer, who has been given the death sentence. I have heard of cases where they try to have the sentence pardoned, and other cases where they just seek to tell him that they forgive him before he goes. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

In a sort of related issue, sometimes a murderer who repents and becomes a Christian seeks to get out of the penalty on the basis that he's not the same person any more. I always regard that with a bit of skepticism, not just because it might just be a ruse, but because even if it is real, your faith and forgiveness are between you and God, and doesn't necessarily mean anything with regard to the legal consequences here on earth. (Besides, if he really believes he is forgiven and saved, he's going to heaven, so what's to avoid? Here on earth he could never get away from the fact that he killed someone. In heaven it is gone.)

Forgiveness is between the forgiver and the forgiven, whether it is God or the victim. Punishment for a crime is a different issue, and involves more people.

This really is an interesting take on it.
And this is an interesting issue, because it is of course influenced by whatever other beliefs each of us holds. That's why i do this sort of rephrasing of your arguments, I'm trying to translate them into my, secular, world view. As with any translation, I'm sure some of your meaning is lost, but there's nothing much you can do about that.

What I'm getting from your last post is that the forgiving and the "justice" serve different purposes. You forgive the guy because it is better for your own mental health, but you "get justice" because it is for the good of the society. Is this right? Do you only report an illegal activity because you consider that reporting it is beneficial to society?(I'm not actually talking about *you* personally, if someone killed your kid I'm sure you'd have more than that as a reason for reporting the crime, I'm talking about someone who's applying your moral view perfectly).

But you see, your previous statements WEREN'T based on that presumption, because "if everyone acted according to these rules" then there wouldn't BE the sorts of crimes like murder that you discuss. You see what I'm getting at?

I realize you said "almost everyone", but I cannot be held responsible for anyone's actions but my own.

I had written a decent size reply explaining what framework i use to determine whether a moral rule is good or not, but after i finished i realized it was a futile attempt unless we first agree on what morality is.

As i see it morality is simply a set of general guidelines which can be relatively easily applied to most situations(easier than laws anyway) and which have the purpose of benefiting society. If people follow the rules, society is better off.
That's why, the golden rule for instance is a pretty good moral rule. Simple, yet, in most cases, effective. I do think we can do better though.
Anyway, would you generally agree with that definition?

[daddy1gringo]

This really is an interesting take on it.
And this is an interesting issue, because it is of course influenced by whatever other beliefs each of us holds. That's why i do this sort of rephrasing of your arguments, I'm trying to translate them into my, secular, world view. As with any translation, I'm sure some of your meaning is lost, but there's nothing much you can do about that.

What I'm getting from your last post is that the forgiving and the "justice" serve different purposes. You forgive the guy because it is better for your own mental health, but you "get justice" because it is for the good of the society. Is this right? Do you only report an illegal activity because you consider that reporting it is beneficial to society?(I'm not actually talking about *you* personally, if someone killed your kid I'm sure you'd have more than that as a reason for reporting the crime, I'm talking about someone who's applying your moral view perfectly).

I think you're absolutely correct that something is lost from what I have said if you translate it into strictly secular terms. I don't know if it is right to say that my point of view makes no sense if you take God out of the equation, but at least it makes less sense.

About the forgiveness being just for my own mental health, yes, if you take God out of the equation, that is all you are left with. First, understand that I don't view my faith as a religion, but as a relationship. God loved me and forgave me totally undeserving on my part. I did not, and do not, earn any of that by what I do. Anything (right) I do, I do because it is what makes him happy, because I love him, both as his son and because I have come to know him. Generally there are also benefits for doing so, but sometimes it is strictly a sacrifice.

Forgiveness is what the cross was all about; it is very important to him. He commands it in terms stronger than anything else in the New Testament; it is the only thing on our part that our own forgiveness is in any way linked to. We are supposed to forgive because he has forgiven us, not because the other person deserves it. Forgiving others is how I show my gratefulness for his forgiving me; it is what makes him happy. My mental, and spiritual, health is a fringe benefit.

I can give reams of scriptural references for all this but unless you ask for it, I'll save the time.

I have been told that in Islam, they consider forgiveness Allah's business (every sura begins with, "The words of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate"), not our business, that our job is to enforce the law. In Christianity it is the reverse. Forgiveness is our business; seeing that people get what they deserve is God's. He delegates that to a certain degree to the ruling authorities. Justice is also pleasing to Him, and we are supposed to do our part in seeing that done, whatever that is in the circumstances. Once again, the fact that it is beneficial to society is, well, not so much a fringe benefit, as a corollary.

Now about this:

Do you only report an illegal activity because you consider that reporting it is beneficial to society?(I'm not actually talking about *you* personally, if someone killed your kid I'm sure you'd have more than that as a reason for reporting the crime, I'm talking about someone who's applying your moral view perfectly).

I think the "more than that" is something that God would regard as natural and understandable, but that I would eventually have to get over, with His help. My anger certainly would motivate me, but morally speaking isn't the purpose. Once again, I think that as you pointed out, my point of view doesn't "translate" well. If you take God, and the fact that justice pleases him, out of the equation, and the idea that "it is just right", then my anger and the benefit of society is all that you are left with.

[AAFitz]

#1. That the other side is wrong.

[Woodruff]

But you see, your previous statements WEREN'T based on that presumption, because "if everyone acted according to these rules" then there wouldn't BE the sorts of crimes like murder that you discuss. You see what I'm getting at?

I realize you said "almost everyone", but I cannot be held responsible for anyone's actions but my own.

I had written a decent size reply explaining what framework i use to determine whether a moral rule is good or not, but after i finished i realized it was a futile attempt unless we first agree on what morality is.
As i see it morality is simply a set of general guidelines which can be relatively easily applied to most situations(easier than laws anyway) and which have the purpose of benefiting society. If people follow the rules, society is better off.
That's why, the golden rule for instance is a pretty good moral rule. Simple, yet, in most cases, effective. I do think we can do better though.
Anyway, would you generally agree with that definition?

For me, morality has entirely to do with "doing the right thing". I guess I would agree that "doing the right thing" would typically have benefit to society...

Just for reference, I'll remind both of us of the statement that set us off on this particular tangent:

I do however think that most of the preaching of Jesus are actually pretty solid morals to live by. My own moral ideas are based on them completely, and the fact that I dont happen to believe he is God, does not make me question the morals that seem to be self evident.

[Haggis_McMutton]

This really is an interesting take on it.
And this is an interesting issue, because it is of course influenced by whatever other beliefs each of us holds. That's why i do this sort of rephrasing of your arguments, I'm trying to translate them into my, secular, world view. As with any translation, I'm sure some of your meaning is lost, but there's nothing much you can do about that.

What I'm getting from your last post is that the forgiving and the "justice" serve different purposes. You forgive the guy because it is better for your own mental health, but you "get justice" because it is for the good of the society. Is this right? Do you only report an illegal activity because you consider that reporting it is beneficial to society?(I'm not actually talking about *you* personally, if someone killed your kid I'm sure you'd have more than that as a reason for reporting the crime, I'm talking about someone who's applying your moral view perfectly).

I think you're absolutely correct that something is lost from what I have said if you translate it into strictly secular terms. I don't know if it is right to say that my point of view makes no sense if you take God out of the equation, but at least it makes less sense.

About the forgiveness being just for my own mental health, yes, if you take God out of the equation, that is all you are left with. First, understand that I don't view my faith as a religion, but as a relationship. God loved me and forgave me totally undeserving on my part. I did not, and do not, earn any of that by what I do. Anything (right) I do, I do because it is what makes him happy, because I love him, both as his son and because I have come to know him. Generally there are also benefits for doing so, but sometimes it is strictly a sacrifice.

Forgiveness is what the cross was all about; it is very important to him. He commands it in terms stronger than anything else in the New Testament; it is the only thing on our part that our own forgiveness is in any way linked to. We are supposed to forgive because he has forgiven us, not because the other person deserves it. Forgiving others is how I show my gratefulness for his forgiving me; it is what makes him happy. My mental, and spiritual, health is a fringe benefit.

I can give reams of scriptural references for all this but unless you ask for it, I'll save the time.

I have been told that in Islam, they consider forgiveness Allah's business (every sura begins with, "The words of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate"), not our business, that our job is to enforce the law. In Christianity it is the reverse. Forgiveness is our business; seeing that people get what they deserve is God's. He delegates that to a certain degree to the ruling authorities. Justice is also pleasing to Him, and we are supposed to do our part in seeing that done, whatever that is in the circumstances. Once again, the fact that it is beneficial to society is, well, not so much a fringe benefit, as a corollary.

Now about this:

Do you only report an illegal activity because you consider that reporting it is beneficial to society?(I'm not actually talking about *you* personally, if someone killed your kid I'm sure you'd have more than that as a reason for reporting the crime, I'm talking about someone who's applying your moral view perfectly).

I think the "more than that" is something that God would regard as natural and understandable, but that I would eventually have to get over, with His help. My anger certainly would motivate me, but morally speaking isn't the purpose. Once again, I think that as you pointed out, my point of view doesn't "translate" well. If you take God, and the fact that justice pleases him, out of the equation, and the idea that "it is just right", then my anger and the benefit of society is all that you are left with.

I was afraid we'd get to this point.
Basically, if i translate your point into secular terms then it becomes exactly what i believe(morality means doing the act because it's in the benefit of society) + a clause that helps with your mental health(don't hold on to anger). I would argue that the clause, while useful isn't a part of morality(as i define it) and voilla, we agree( except not)

The only way to continue this discussion would be to get into a debate about the existence of god, and no one wants that.

For me, morality has entirely to do with "doing the right thing". I guess I would agree that "doing the right thing" would typically have benefit to society...

Curses, i was hoping we'd at least agree on that definition.
I have to say, the chances of us actually solving all of these tangents and getting back to the issue at hand seems slim.

Still worth a shot though:
Do you believe in absolute values?
If yes where do they come from(i believe you are an agnostic, right?)
If not, what is the "right thing".

In a manner of saying i too think morality is about doing the "right thing", it's just that the only generally applicable "right thing" i can think of is benefiting society(or maybe directly humanity)

[daddy1gringo]

I was afraid we'd get to this point.
Basically, if i translate your point into secular terms then it becomes exactly what i believe(morality means doing the act because it's in the benefit of society) + a clause that helps with your mental health(don't hold on to anger). I would argue that the clause, while useful isn't a part of morality(as i define it) and voilla, we agree( except not)

The only way to continue this discussion would be to get into a debate about the existence of god, and no one wants that.

Well, it might be possible to maneuver around that by introducing the concept of "natural law", which as I understand it is the idea that some things are just right because they are right, and others just wrong because they are wrong, without basing it on whether or not it benefits society.

I suppose you would have to postulate the existence of some kind of "god" for the existence of such a natural law to make sense, but a very vague, deist/Taoist/transcendental-oversoul type thing would do. You could attribute the natural law to that entity, and I could attribute it to my very specific, very personal God. So we could agree to disagree about the existence of God in a sense, and still perhaps come to an agreement about the natural law.

The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis is a good short work, largely about this idea. He ends it with an appendix where he breaks down certain parts of the natural law, and gives quotes from various cultures, showing that each of these ideals were part of the moral code of all of those cultures.

[Woodruff]

For me, morality has entirely to do with "doing the right thing". I guess I would agree that "doing the right thing" would typically have benefit to society...

Curses, i was hoping we'd at least agree on that definition.
I have to say, the chances of us actually solving all of these tangents and getting back to the issue at hand seems slim.
Still worth a shot though:
Do you believe in absolute values?

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute values". I don't believe that given a general statement ("killing is wrong"), that it is always correct morally. However, I DO tend to believe that given a very specific statement ("killing the intruder who is coming at you with a knife in the middle of the night when you don't honestly believe there is any other way to stop him"), that there is always a correct way to react morally. I guess what I'm saying is that if each specific incident is looked at with it's own merits instead of as a general "type of incident", I would say that there are absolute values. So did I completely misunderstand the question?

If yes where do they come from(i believe you are an agnostic, right?)

Yes, I consider myself an agnostic (the type who truly recognizes there's no way to know if God exists or not, so doesn't bother leaning one way or the other). I believe I've already covered where my values come from...they do essentially come from Jesus' teachings...remember, that set off this tangent?

If not, what is the "right thing".

I'm not sure what you mean by this question.

In a manner of saying i too think morality is about doing the "right thing", it's just that the only generally applicable "right thing" i can think of is benefiting society(or maybe directly humanity)

Not necessarily. If I see a bum getting the crap beaten out of him by some stupid punk kid and I think it's likely that he will beat the bum to death, stepping in and stopping it wouldn't necessarily be of a benefit to society. You'd have to take into account what sort of a drain the bum is on society if he is allowed to live as well as what kind of a drain the punk is going to be on society if he remains free. I would maintain that all of that is irrelevant to doing the right thing, which is to step in and stop it.