christian morals vs. civilisation morals

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:00 pm

What are the differences between Christain morals and civilisation morals? Or are they the same? Does claiming to have one set over the other make you a better person?

These are just questions I ponder while reading some of the threads and peoples personal views when replying to them.

ok be back in moment.

oh where's the spell checker???

Runner4thePrize · Post by **Runner4thePrize** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:21 pm

There is a moral code in nearly all of civilization, not just with Christians. The Koran teaches right from wrong, the Teachings of Buddha also teach right and wrong morals.

There are also civilizations from the past who practiced immorality, IE=human sacrifice, etc. Most of so-called christian followings today that have elected to re-write the moral code. Sodomy used to be immoral, shacking up used to be immoral, as was homosexuality and other perversions.

A true follower of Christ would follow the moral code that Jesus and His Apostles taught.

CVX · Post by **CVX** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:28 pm

Sheryl wrote:

oh where's the spell checker???

http://www.iespell.com/

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:40 pm

Runner4thePrize@hotmail. wrote: There is a moral code in nearly all of civilization, not just with Christians. The Koran teaches right from wrong, the Teachings of Buddha also teach right and wrong morals.

There are also civilizations from the past who practiced immorality, IE=human sacrifice, etc. Most of so-called christian followings today that have elected to re-write the moral code. Sodomy used to be immoral, shacking up used to be immoral, as was homosexuality and other perversions.

A true follower of Christ would follow the moral code that Jesus and His Apostles taught.

Thanks, I should have put in religious morals vs. non religious morals now that I have thought more about it. But I was rushing so I could see what was going on across the street. Being a nosy neighbor

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 2:56 pm

I think the difference is in ethics. Some - repeat some - secular people believe that whatever you don't get caught at is okay. And if one can figure a way to justify an act as not being illegal, it must be legal and therefore ethical, moral, etc.

This is why we need the church in equal balance to gov't. When gov't tries to dictate morality, it gets muddled with legal ethics. Likewise when the church tries to influence politics, the church just ends up getting dirty.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:07 pm

Accountable wrote: I think the difference is in ethics. Some - repeat some - secular people believe that whatever you don't get caught at is okay. And if one can figure a way to justify an act as not being illegal, it must be legal and therefore ethical, moral, etc.

This is why we need the church in equal balance to gov't. When gov't tries to dictate morality, it gets muddled with legal ethics. Likewise when the church tries to influence politics, the church just ends up getting dirty.

Ok Acc gonna get difficult here. I see what you are saying. But we both know that nearly all the countrys have a folks of all different religions. So my question is which church gets to be the one that keeps everything in balance?

I know this is being nick picky but it's stuff I wonder about. For example in the U.S. if a Islamic family where to kill one of their daughters to protect their family honor. The majority of us would scream murder. But is right of us to make the accusation of murder when they were acting according their belief and or moral system?

If this doesn't make sense I"m sorry. My brain is faster than my fingers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:27 pm

Sheryl wrote: Ok Acc gonna get difficult here. I see what you are saying. But we both know that nearly all the countrys have a folks of all different religions. So my question is which church gets to be the one that keeps everything in balance?

I know this is being nick picky but it's stuff I wonder about. For example in the U.S. if a Islamic family where to kill one of their daughters to protect their family honor. The majority of us would scream murder. But is right of us to make the accusation of murder when they were acting according their belief and or moral system?

If this doesn't make sense I"m sorry. My brain is faster than my fingers.
That's the problem with mixing law & religion. Law must protect everybody, and when it comes to deciding to respect law or respect the individual, the law must err for the individual.

If someone wants to do something against the law for religious reasons, I believe they should go to prison proudly, full of the knowledge that they have served their religion.

Is that along the lines you were thinking of?

venus · Post by **venus** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:34 pm

If the way to go is the quoting of religious beliefs and writings how about 'an eye for an eye' etc..

I think that l have more moral than religious values.

WRONG

taking a life

stealing

lying

cheating on a loved one/partner

beating

the list could go on and on

GOOD

treat all those around you with respect

do not judge on looks.colour,religion ,sexual orientation, adility, age, sex etc etc

I may not agree with you, but aslong as your not citing hate or violence then you are entitled to an opinion

Don't say anything about someone you wouldn't have the balls to say to their face.

Don't be nasty to make yourself feel better, you/they should be better than that

again the list could go on and on

Everyone has their own views on religion and l have mine..

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:37 pm

Accountable wrote: I think the difference is in ethics. Some - repeat some - secular people believe that whatever you don't get caught at is okay. And if one can figure a way to justify an act as not being illegal, it must be legal and therefore ethical, moral, etc.

This is why we need the church in equal balance to gov't. When gov't tries to dictate morality, it gets muddled with legal ethics. Likewise when the church tries to influence politics, the church just ends up getting dirty.
Hurray! Accountable said something that I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH!!!!

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:47 pm

Accountable wrote: That's the problem with mixing law & religion. Law must protect everybody, and when it comes to deciding to respect law or respect the individual, the law must err for the individual.

If someone wants to do something against the law for religious reasons, I believe they should go to prison proudly, full of the knowledge that they have served their religion.

Is that along the lines you were thinking of?

Yes that's how I would personally see how an issue like I used for an example to be treated. One's religion cannot be their excuse for commiting an act against the governing set of laws. that's what you are saying in layman's terms.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:50 pm

Jives wrote: Hurray! Accountable said something that I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH!!!!Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

123cat · Post by **123cat** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:34 pm

[Q. For example in the U.S. if a Islamic family where to kill one of their daughters to protect their family honor. The majority of us would scream murder. But is right of us to make the accusation of murder when they were acting according their belief and or moral system?

The Koran or at least Sharia Law councils devout muslims not to break the laws of the country in which they dwell. According to one Imam anyway.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:10 pm

Except that pesky little murder one, in some cases.

memebias · Post by **memebias** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:27 pm

123cat wrote: The Koran or at least Sharia Law councils devout muslims not to break the laws of the country in which they dwell. According to one Imam anyway.

Quite right too. Imagine the chaos if everyone decided that the laws and morals of their particular belief took precedence over that of common law.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:29 pm

memebias wrote: Quite right too. Imagine the chaos if everyone decided that the laws and morals of their particular belief took precedence over that of common law.
It does and it should, but that's a different thread. :guitarist