Thread: The laws of men

There's a streak of vengefulness in Christianity that's big enough to accomodate any attrocities a human being can commit to another. However, we're veering off topic since this is more about the compatibility of laws and human morality.

Originally Posted by jockeys

before I begin, I'd like to say that my religion is going to color my answers, because it helps define my internal sense of morality. (some people refer to this as the Moral Compass)

1) not in the slightest. the laws of men are artificial constructs designed to PROTECT SOCIETY. (it is arguable how effective some of them are at this, but that is not germane to the current discussion) speeding is disobeying the laws of man, and i don't think that is immoral. stupid? yeah. unsafe? definitely. but you will have a hard time finding someone that thinks speeding is morally wrong. we have a speed limit to prevent wrecks, not to prevent sin.

2) in my view, no, because my religion doesn't support the idea of there BEING an afterlife of any sort, so there you have it. kind of a moot point to me.

3) well, in the view of my religion, your morals are YOUR morals. if you feel that something is morally wrong, don't do it. every man lives by his own code, to some extent. my religion is pretty big on not projecting your values onto others. the one exception to this is when morals collide, at which point, both parties must behave as they wish UNLESS this should cause one party to injure the other, which is not acceptable.

as previously stated, i follow an odd religion, so these answers are going to seem peculiar to some.

You have me interested now. Church of the flying spaghetti monster? Commune of the cursing pirate?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

You have me interested now. Church of the flying spaghetti monster? Commune of the cursing pirate?

No, I am a Satanist in the LaVeyan tradition.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

You have me interested now. Church of the flying spaghetti monster? Commune of the cursing pirate?

Although Pastafarianism is highly amusing, and I support what Bobby Henderson is doing with it. But that's more of an intellectual protest/running gag than a real religion. I'm actually writing a book about different religions right now, and I put in a section about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Fun stuff.

This will be interesting

[quote=Bruno;162420]I've been thinking about this for some time, and thought I'd share it.
I don't know the answers either...

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?
Sometimes, but not always. Sometime the laws of men are biased and made to, as firestart pointed out, keep the unjust status quo. There are a bunch of laws that I think are down right stupid (the self defence that Wildtim refered to is one of them)

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?

No Idea. I'll let you know as soon as I kick the bucket and ask the big man himself.

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?

That one's easy, I'll quote from the book of martini "different strokes for different folks, just follow the golden rule"
In other words, mine. Maybe the same as Wildtim's, if so ours. If not, mine.
Seriously, though, I don't think it's that cut and dry. In Dale Carnegie's famous lecture (now book and audio book) How to win friend's and influence people, Mr. Carnegie read the last letter written by Al Capone as he was engaged in a standoff with the police. Al Capone sw nothing morally wrong with what he was doing, instead felt he was rendering a "public service". Perhaps the morals lie more with the person than with the religion.
Oh, and remember to tip your bartender

Good one Bruno!! I will post when I have a couple of hours!

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?
To me, there are two different sets of rules- God's rules and man's rules. God's rules are absolute black and white. You either adhere to them or you don't. You're saved or you're not. I don't believe in just being a good person. I figure heaven is God's party and Jesus is the bouncer. You either do what he says or you don't get in. It's ok to have that kind of finiteness because of the magnitude of it. It is eternal after all.

As far as being morally wrong to disobey the laws of man, I guess it depends on the law. Some laws are widely accepted to have been immoral, such as the Nazi purge of their Problem. The way I see it, you can't just go by our laws and expect God to be ok with it. If it runs contrary to God's laws, then it is moral to disobey.

I think the question here is "is it morally wrong to disobey laws of men that don't run contradictory to God's laws?". Say for instance speed limits. The Bible doesn't opine on speed limits, so how are we to know? I think it's a personal moral judgment. I don't feel like God is going to punish me for going over the speed limit or replacing the battery in my ipod or running with scissors.

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?
See above...

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?
Fantastic question! When I think of this, I recall that in the Bible they talk about the people who have never heard of Christianity. Those people obviously do not have the knowledge to play by God's specific rules. Well, they aren't just screwed over. In this instance, I have to side with CS Lewis. He says that there is more or less the "general" rules of the eternity game, and if you abide by those in the absence of "the truth", then you're ok. God isn't going to punish you for being ignorant.

Of course, what if I'm completely wrong and the true ruler of the universe is some evil entity that says we should be like Hitler. If that's the case, then I'll be going to hell. I like the kind of person I am, and if that's how things have to be, then so be it.

You fellows are probably not going to like this but here goes.

I don't believe there is such a thing as MORAL in capital letters. What we have are mores (mor ay) which are defined by our society. In some societies cannibalism was a more, if you did not partake you would be labeled as immoral. Just consider what would be immoral 50 years ago yet is now accepted practice to get an idea of how morality is a moving target. That does not mean I don't think in terms of right and wrong. Usually when faced with a decision I usually ask myself what is the honorable thing to do.

Since I consider myself an atheist - questions of afterlife don't often occur. At least its not something I concern myself with.

One of the reasons I'm an atheist is that all those religions can't be right and many of them are staffed by people that are truly corrupt which I don't think any god would or should allow. I see organized religion as a mind control game. Their moral pronouncements are simply for control.

Well then aren't you sorry you asked.

OK, I wanted to weigh in on the whole government thread a while back, and I think I will just make a few short pithy comments and run like hell.

Right and wrong is in the eyes of the beholder, just like truth - while the Greek philosophers opined that there is a "universal truth" floating around there, we are several degrees away from being able to see it - and it changes depending on your perspective (where you are standing during the bank robbery may change what you believe happened, thereby affecting *your* truth of the situation).

Most all of our fundamental laws arise from the first rules established when men began living together - "natural law" was the strongest survive, to the extreme prejudice of the weak and the young. I could, under natural law, crush the weak, the infirmed, to obtain my goal. Most religious tenets are based upon the rules that man had to develop when they started living together, "Don't kill anybody (in your tribe) or you won't have anyone left to help you fend off the other tribe". We establish governments, and give up more of our individual freedoms to do what we want for the establishment of a central protection (and a conjoined and therefore stronger and smarter economy) against other foreign threats, and threats by the stronger against the weaker. Even today, most laws are developed to protect the weak (and poor to a certain extent) from the tyranny of the strong (and rich) - not all mind you, but most. Speeding laws (ideally) protect Joe Dirt in his 40mph Yugo from getting blown off the road by SuperHummer at 120mph. You have indicated that breaking speeding laws are not immoral, but I ask you, if, as a result of your speeding, you kill someone - an innocent person minding their own business, is wacked because of your disregard for a law that was instituted by *your* chosen representatives, your legislators - is that act of manslaughter immoral? Maybe - depends on what was called your moral compass. Religion is in effect the codification of the massive shared experience of our ancestors - except for the bit about wearing black sneakers and being taken to another planet on a spaceship and drinking cyanide laced High-C first...The ten commandments are in the same old testament with justified stoning of adulterers, homesexuals, or persons that touch Mt. Sinai. One set of rules we want to put on monuments and force them to be displayed in our state capital, the others we want to just, well, call barbaric and not appropriate to "modern life". Hypocrisy, maybe - again depends on what you want to cherry pick from the religion of your choice.

Fact is, if laws are unjust, change them through the legislative process you have bought into - but if you do nothing, don't bitch about unjust laws or tyrannical oppression.

Ok, where was I. Stepped away, don't remember what I was trying to say...well, I will just hit the submit button then anyway.

K

Originally Posted by cabo_sailor

You fellows are probably not going to like this but here goes.

I don't believe there is such a thing as MORAL in capital letters. What we have are mores (mor ay) which are defined by our society. In some societies cannibalism was a more, if you did not partake you would be labeled as immoral. Just consider what would be immoral 50 years ago yet is now accepted practice to get an idea of how morality is a moving target. That does not mean I don't think in terms of right and wrong. Usually when faced with a decision I usually ask myself what is the honorable thing to do.

Since I consider myself an atheist - questions of afterlife don't often occur. At least its not something I concern myself with.

One of the reasons I'm an atheist is that all those religions can't be right and many of them are staffed by people that are truly corrupt which I don't think any god would or should allow. I see organized religion as a mind control game. Their moral pronouncements are simply for control.

Well then aren't you sorry you asked.

Except that I am not an athiest I tend to think along these lines in general!
To help illustrate your point to a small degree I invite you to view this thread:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/showthread.php?t=16982