Where do Christians (and other religious folk) get their morals from?

[gloomy-optimist]

Pagan simply means not Christian. Modern agnostics are pagans. They don't acknowledge the Christian god. But I agree, the most militarily successful cultures have always been the ones who ruled, and their religion was always the one that dominated the land.

Wrong. Although paganism is used to describe much of pre-Christianity, it is by no means a term meant to be non-Christian. Paganism typically describes folk-religions or polytheist religions; paganism and agnosticism are definitely not the same thing, as paganism almost always has actual, defined deities.

But yes. The fact that religion was used to dominate cultures returns to the idea that religion was used as a form of structure, and therefore it was through those means that it wrote "rules" for morals; thus, it can be concluded than many morals come from religion for this reason, or at least explained and actualized by religion. Take from that what you will; it does not mean that religion is good, nor does it mean that religion is bad -- just that it is definitive (especially in its more literal translations)

I acknowledge that you feel the Bible needs to understood and interpreted in context to the times.

Not in context to the times; in context to the individual, and in context to basic reason.

 

[Satya]

Wrong. Although paganism is used to describe much of pre-Christianity, it is by no means a term meant to be non-Christian. Paganism typically describes folk-religions or polytheist religions; paganism and agnosticism are definitely not the same thing, as paganism almost always has actual, defined deities.

Meh, there is more than one definition of paganism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+paganism&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

But yes. The fact that religion was used to dominate cultures returns to the idea that religion was used as a form of structure, and therefore it was through those means that it wrote "rules" for morals; thus, it can be concluded than many morals come from religion for this reason, or at least explained and actualized by religion. Take from that what you will; it does not mean that religion is good, nor does it mean that religion is bad -- just that it is definitive (especially in its more literal translations)

I would say that morality is rational and it comes naturally to man. I think religion just tries to claim to be the source.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Meh, there is more than one definition of paganism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+paganism&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

True, but all of those tend to be associated with religious beliefs and practices, not agnosticism.

I would say that morality is rational and it comes naturally to man. I think religion just tries to claim to be the source.

Which is a perfectly legitimate argument. I'd say so as well; morals are basically natural to man, as any real culture has had some sort of moral code. However, religion is also almost natural in this way; almost any real culture has begun with religion as well. So, by that argument, religion is rational I'm not going to push that argument though; however, I will say that it's difficult to distinguish whether religion is a key in defining morals or whether morals and religion are defined independent of each other, since both tend to evolve naturally and very early in any human civilization.

 

[Shai Gar]

Wrong. Although paganism is used to describe much of pre-Christianity, it is by no means a term meant to be non-Christian. Paganism typically describes folk-religions or polytheist religions; paganism and agnosticism are definitely not the same thing, as paganism almost always has actual, defined deities.

But yes. The fact that religion was used to dominate cultures returns to the idea that religion was used as a form of structure, and therefore it was through those means that it wrote "rules" for morals; thus, it can be concluded than many morals come from religion for this reason, or at least explained and actualized by religion. Take from that what you will; it does not mean that religion is good, nor does it mean that religion is bad -- just that it is definitive (especially in its more literal translations)

Not in context to the times; in context to the individual, and in context to basic reason.

Wrong. Pagan was a roman word used as an insult do describe the back country romans. Today we say "Hick". When rome changed to christianity the back country people kept their religions and the term Pagan began to be used for those who wouldn't change.

Pagan isn't a specific set of beliefs. It never was.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Wrong. Pagan was a roman word used as an insult do describe the back country romans. Today we say "Hick". When rome changed to christianity the back country people kept their religions and the term Pagan began to be used for those who wouldn't change.

Pagan isn't a specific set of beliefs. It never was.

Once again, I wasn't referring to the term or word so much as what it describes

Typically, when you talk of someone who is pagan, you are referring to someone who believes in something other than mainstream, monotheistic beliefs and usually take part in polytheistic or folk religions. It is not a single set of beliefs, but rather is used to describe any number of religions that fit this category, both in ancient and present times.

 

[Shai Gar]

So, a person who doesn't have a religion but believes something.

A real religion* has a name of its own, rather than an ancient insult as a defining term.



*such as the order of shai gar

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Nope, still off a little It is an encompassing term for many different religions; it describes religions that are mostly polytheist or folk religions.

This includes Celtic, Norse, ancient Greek and Roman religions, etc.


You guys don't have many friends that are Pagan, do you?

 

[Shai Gar]

I don't make friends with morons.

Celtic, Norsk and the Ancient Beliefs are just that. However, except for very few norsk adherents, the originals got converted to christianity by the book or by the spear or by the sword.

The original beliefs don't exist anymore, what exist are a bunch of rituals people make up surrounding the myths. I've got nothing against that as standard practice, I do it a lot. But I don't go around pretending I'm worshiping Lugh and calling myself a Hick.

I'm a LeVayan Satanist. Christians have their own names about us, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around defining myself by their retarded preconceptions. "Paganists" are morons based on the fact that they are calling themselves what is in reality an insult from another time/faith.

 

[Chopsifer]

Isn't the main idea behind the thread a little bit of an unfair generalization? Yes, some people, that happen to be religious, get their morals from an old book. But is that really all that there is to religion?

Plenty of people have done extraordinary acts of good and evil in the name of their religion, their country, and other personal abstractions that justify things. I think narrowing silly behavior to just the religious is not really seeing the forest for the trees. But maybe I am not seeing the discussion for what it is. If not, please let me know.

 

[WickedPod]

I've tried to distance myself from this argument, because there are people with such closed minds that it's really just like arguing with a fencepost.

But, I do have a few questions now that I've given myself some time.

Why does it anger some of you that people are Christian (or any other religion that is similar, like Judaism, Islam, etc.)?

If you feel you should be free to choose on what you base your morals and to have your own beliefs, why can we not?

Why do you feel the need for us to argue and offer tangible evidence why we have found peace and happiness, just because it isn't the same reason as yours?

It all seems a bit fascist to me.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

^^ I think you have some good points, Chopsifer

Shai: I'm not trying to promote the beliefs; I'm just saying what they are and how they are called.

Although if you refuse to call something by a term because at one point it was an insult, then you might have some issues. There are quite a few terms in the English language that originated as something insulting and became something descriptive instead. There are also many terms that were originally harmless that became insulting.

In other words, when people are calling themselves Pagan now, they are not calling themselves Hicks. They're calling themselves believers in polytheist or folk religions. Furthermore, paganism is not limited to the religions I previously listed; there are many people that believe in natural spirits and have personalized beliefs that are "pagan."

 

[Shai Gar]

They're then insulting the beliefs they profess to hold. And the people who used to hold them.

Using your line of thinking we should be free to use words like nigger, after all, now it's a form of endearment.

 

[Shai Gar]

I've tried to distance myself from this argument, because there are people with such closed minds that it's really just like arguing with a fencepost.

But, I do have a few questions now that I've given myself some time.

Why does it anger some of you that people are Christian (or any other religion that is similar, like Judaism, Islam, etc.)?

If you feel you should be free to choose on what you base your morals and to have your own beliefs, why can we not?

Why do you feel the need for us to argue and offer tangible evidence why we have found peace and happiness, just because it isn't the same reason as yours?

It all seems a bit fascist to me.

No, it's not. It doesn't offend me at all that people hold mainstream religious beliefs. It is curious though that they hold morals that are social mainstream, when their religious books don't hold them.

Judaism is a bad example though, theirs are a more Rational set of beliefs.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Language is by no means an unchanging thing. At one point in time, "pants" was a very dirty and insulting word.

I really don't mind using it anymore, personally.

Insults have much more to do with intention than they do words alone. If no one realizes or cares that they are "insulting" themselves by using a term that was insulting hundreds of years ago but has long since changed meaning, then I can't really see why it would matter.

 

[Shai Gar]

Oh fine, I won't care as long as we stop calling christians christians, muslims muslims, jews jews or zoroastrians zoroastrians.

From now on they're monotheists.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Which they are Monotheists are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
And Pagans/Polytheists are Wiccans, Celtics, etc. etc.

In other words, don't quite see your point there, Shai

 

[Shai Gar]

Pagan isn't a religion. It's a vast generalisation about western and northern european polytheistic religions.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Yep. Got that part down.

It is an encompassing term for many different religions; it describes religions that are mostly polytheist or folk religions.

Typically, when you talk of someone who is pagan, you are referring to someone who believes in something other than mainstream, monotheistic beliefs and usually take part in polytheistic or folk religions. It is not a single set of beliefs, but rather is used to describe any number of religions that fit this category, both in ancient and present times.

 

[Shai Gar]

Therefore it isn't a religion. Calling yourself a Pagan is utterly stupid.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Sometimes "Pagan" is more easily accepted than, say, "Wiccan," which is a religion that is somewhat vastly misunderstood. And then you have people who have much more individualized beliefs that don't know what they should call themselves or get tired of trying to explain their beliefs to people, so pagan is much easier to say.

People have reasons for what they do sometimes.