Where does morality come from?

[Misshalfway]

So if a society decides that it is ok for soldiers to come in your house and rape your wife anytime they wish, then relative morality would say they are justified in doing so because that is the way the government works best to control the people and reward the soldiers for their service. And as unpleasant as this action would be, it wouldn't be inherently wrong, just an action that you personally may not like.

[Misshalfway]

One strong argument against a universal standard of morality is the discrepancy between cause and effect. We like to tell ourselves that good actions are rewarded and evil actions are punished. However, this is not always the case in the real world. The only way to make morality universal is for universal justice, granted by an omniscient and unbiased observer which is willing and capable of administering justice. Obviously that's where you're going to say that your God fits in. But you already know what I would say to that :)

With regard to the cause and effects of morality, the effects in the outside world are not so linear, are they? But on the inside of a person is where the moral fabric is really woven. Kindness inside of a person isn't diminished because the recipient of said kindness refuses it or returns it with wrath. What we do in this world, the actions we take in public or private, are a reflection of who we are within. A person with strong character may not be spared the realities of living in an imperfect sphere, but the imperfections in ones circumstance can never steal anything from the goodness within. And what would a society look like with many, if not all of its members who had similar shining characters? How well would the society function then? And would they be functioning well by chance? or by universal consensus based on results, or would they be obeying eternal law?

I don't think that you can say that there are no rewards for good or evil either. The honest are sometimes trusted and favored above the dishonest. Those who murder sometimes lose their freedoms. Sexually promiscuity sometimes results in the loss of childhood, innocence and can result in STD's and fatherlessness and poverty.

[DigitalShadow]

So if a society decides that it is ok for soldiers to come in your house and rape your wife anytime they wish, then relative morality would say they are justified in doing so because that is the way the government works best to control the people and reward the soldiers for their service. And as unpleasant as this action would be, it wouldn't be inherently wrong, just an action that you personally may not like.

I would say that is one of those times where the moral codes of the society have fallen out of sync with their original purpose of allowing people to coexist. No matter how motivated the soldiers are, causing that much pain to the population is not in the best interest of coexisting and practices like that quickly fade out of societies.

As I said, it is not that we should never say that another society is out of line, I was only stating that it is a slippery slope of where to stop.

[Misshalfway]

I am trying to understand your position DS. I get that you don't believe in God and that an acknowledgment of some universal code would definitely weaken such a position. I am just wondering if you believe in any kind of right and wrong. Do we only do the right thing when it benefits us personally? And if we do choose some altruistic gesture towards the community, do we only do so because we have evolved to that position based upon the results of what works and what doesn't? As if to say all evolution went in the direction of order and rightness.

I mean no one, in your theory, would act just because it was the right thing to do?

How can one know where to stop, if one is unsure about where to begin?

Edited July 8, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

I am trying to understand your position DS. I get that you don't believe in God and that an acknowledgment of some universal code would definitely weaken such a position. I am just wondering if you believe in any kind of right and wrong. Do we only do the right thing when it benefits us personally? And if we do choose some altruistic gesture towards the community, do we only do so because we have evolved to that position based upon the results of what works and what doesn't? As if to say all evolution went in the direction of order and rightness.

I mean no one, in your theory, would act just because it was the right thing to do?

How can one know where to stop, if one is unsure about where to begin?

And I'm trying to understand your position as well. I get that you believe in God and that acknowledgement that there is no universal moral code would definitely weaken such a position (just teasing you :))

As I said before, there is a difference between what we feel is right/wrong and how we act on it. I believe that humans innately have the urge to do what they consider is the right thing, but sometimes let other motivations interfere with that, and this is independent of culture. Most of what we consider right/wrong is dependent on culture, but I also believe we innately know that intentionally harming others is wrong, regardless of cultural context (since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that we wouldn't want other people to do that to us). I do not think that is part of a larger, more complex 'universal moral code' as you seem to be implying though.

[Misshalfway]

LOL! He hits back with a left....and then a right!

Soooo on the same page with you with regards to culture and how it effects moral behaviors and norms.

So the question is, where does that general inner consensus come from? If Jose in Texas and Betty Chen in China can both know inherently that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, can science and evolution and biological process really explain such a phenom?

Does it come from God as part of our spiritual creation or does it come because man is inherently good or does it come as you suggest, from organic human trial and error?

I just can't believe that mankind got it right all by themselves. That would be a tremendous expression of luck. And if we are just evolved creatures, why did we evolve this way and not like the rest of terrestrial creation? If right and wrong are just "notion" that someone thought up one day, how is it that each person seems to know that it sucks to be lied to?

[DigitalShadow]

LOL! He hits back with a left....and then a right!

Soooo on the same page with you with regards to culture and how it effects moral behaviors and norms.

So the question is, where does that general inner consensus come from? If Jose in Texas and Betty Chen in China can both know inherently that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, can science and evolution and biological process really explain such a phenom?

Does it come from God as part of our spiritual creation or does it come because man is inherently good or does it come as you suggest, from organic human trial and error?

I just can't believe that mankind got it right all by themselves. That would be a tremendous expression of luck. And if we are just evolved creatures, why did we evolve this way and not like the rest of terrestrial creation? If right and wrong are just "notion" that someone thought up one day, how is it that each person seems to know that it sucks to be lied to?

If those certain things improve the survival of the species, then yes. I would also like to note that certain things that are wrong to any two people of any two given cultures are things that they probably wouldn't want done to themselves. How does that require any universal moral code to figure out?

[Misshalfway]

I think it speaks to the moral code that is written inside of each of us. And not only the code, but the super cool undercover agent code ring as well :) We each have the inherent ability, or degree of ability, to determine truth vs. error.....or flat out lie as the case may be. It is like a muscle, the more you use it and are true to it, the better it works.

If there is not right and no wrong, then are societies amoral? Are behaviors that we label right and wrong really just civic expressions? Or obeyed simply because of social pressures? (not saying that doesn't happen, just that I believe there is more to it than this. Because I personally like the idea of trust the goodness in people. And if there is not universal inner code, then my trust is certainly misplaced.

[DigitalShadow]

I think it speaks to the moral code that is written inside of each of us. And not only the code, but the super cool undercover agent code ring as well :) We each have the inherent ability, or degree of ability, to determine truth vs. error.....or flat out lie as the case may be. It is like a muscle, the more you use it and are true to it, the better it works.

I think that our inherent ability to have a moral code and attempt to follow it is an evolutionary byproduct that allows us to coexist nicely with our fellow man. I know you disagree, but we can agree to disagree on that :)

If there is not right and no wrong, then are societies amoral?

I never said that there is no right or wrong, simply that most of what we think of as right or wrong is determined by the context of our society.

Are behaviors that we label right and wrong really just civic expressions? Or obeyed simply because of social pressures? (not saying that doesn't happen, just that I believe there is more to it than this. Because I personally like the idea of trust the goodness in people. And if there is not universal inner code, then my trust is certainly misplaced.

As I said, I believe we have the innate imperative to do what we think is right, and I never meant to imply it was because of social pressures. I think that there are certain acts that we can all agree are morally wrong because they cause harm to other people (for example: rape, murder, stealing), but I think that beyond that it becomes highly dependent on the context of the culture (for example: premarital sex, alcohol, drug use).

[Misshalfway]

That is perhaps why we don't legislate every little jot and tiddle.

Agreeing to disagree, with me anyway, goes without saying. :)

[DigitalShadow]

That is perhaps why we don't legislate every little jot and tiddle.

Have you not seen how many laws are in existance in the US? I'm not sure what a 'tiddle' is, but I'm sure there is some legislation for it.

Agreeing to disagree, with me anyway, goes without saying. :)

Same here :)

Wait, just realized I did say it, so I guess it doesn't go without saying for me

Edited July 8, 2008 by DigitalShadow

[Misshalfway]

I guess I am confused, because I do believe in God. So I am trying to see this from another view point. If I didn't believe in God, I would have no reason to believe that man is good. I would view man as just another animal....evolved and intelligent maybe.....but inherently amoral --neither good nor bad. I would only see a variety of human behaviors and evaluated such on their pro-social merits.

I don't know if I would be able to explain why humans seem to all instinctually know right from wrong. I don't know if right and wrong would even matter. It would be more about what works and what doesn't. Which IMO blurs the lines of right and wrong even more. It would be much easier for me to not care so much about the welfare of others. Just a bunch of individuals and their ability to survive or prosper themselves. I think I would act in a much more self interested fashion, rather than for the betterment of the whole.....unless I saw the personal gain from promoting such a cause.

It would also make parenting more complicated. I am not sure I would be able to raise morally centered children. I think I could raise pro-social ones, but I think that without religion, I wouldn't be able help them reach their highest moral potentials and moral balance. Too many forces and flatterings and tag lines to confuse things.

[Misshalfway]

Have you not seen how many laws are in existance in the US? I'm not sure what a 'tiddle' is, but I'm sure there is some legislation for it.

Same here :)

Wait, just realized I did say it, so I guess it doesn't go without saying for me

[DigitalShadow]

I guess I am confused, because I do believe in God. So I am trying to see this from another view point. If I didn't believe in God, I would have no reason to believe that man is good. I would view man as just another animal....evolved and intelligent maybe.....but inherently amoral --neither good nor bad. I would only see a variety of human behaviors and evaluated such on their pro-social merits.

Haven't you ever had a dog or some other pet? After a while they know when they are being good and being bad and are capable of altruistic acts to protect their master. Calling animals inherently amoral is mean

I don't know if I would be able to explain why humans seem to all instinctually know right from wrong. I don't know if right and wrong would even matter. It would be more about what works and what doesn't. Which IMO blurs the lines of right and wrong even more. It would be much easier for me to not care so much about the welfare of others. Just a bunch of individuals and their ability to survive or prosper themselves. I think I would act in a much more self interested fashion, rather than for the betterment of the whole.....unless I saw the personal gain from promoting such a cause.

Learning right from wrong is part of growing up, and I know you've raised a few kids. Are you telling me that your kids popped out with a perfect sense of right from wrong and there was no trial and error there? There are some basic things that we can all agree are right/wrong, but I wouldn't call knowing what is right/wrong instinctual.

I don't get how/why you would be more self interested and less interested in the welfare of others if you did not believe in a universal moral code. I think that attributing your good nature to that belief is selling yourself short.

It would also make parenting more complicated. I am not sure I would be able to raise morally centered children. I think I could raise pro-social ones, but I think that without religion, I wouldn't be able help them reach their highest moral potentials and moral balance. Too many forces and flatterings and tag lines to confuse things.

I was raised with no religion, and both me and my sister turned out to be very moral individuals. I think it is less complicated than you think it is.

Edited July 8, 2008 by DigitalShadow
typo

[Misshalfway]

Hmmmm.... you have convinced me..... at least on the points of your above post! :)

[Misshalfway]

Well, I am not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone's worth is diminished. The worth of souls is great.....even ones who make immoral choices. But I think choices definitely do invite darkness and badness in and do shape ones character, and environment which eventually affects society. If you think I am naive or that I don't think humans do bad things.....I think you prolly haven't read very many of my posts.

Btw. Thanks for talking down to me. I appreciated that.

[VisionOfLehi]

And I will argue that there is no universal moral code. Moral values arise so that people can coexist with others. With this intent, each culture defines moral rights and wrongs through various methods (such as religion or laws) so that society can progress. Sometimes these values get out of line with their original purpose and become counterproductive to a society. At that point, either the society dies out and is replaced, or the change comes from the people over time.

I haven't read beyond this point yet.

I would like to first say thanks for that snowflake comment. I really liked that.

You say there's no universal moral code...

Is there not one, or have we just not accepted one, yet?

Right now humanity interacts with each other on a global scale. Cultures constantly interact with others.

At some point we all have to get along. Over time assimilation will have to occur, and some sort of global code of conduct will be accepted.

We're slowly and slowly moving towards a single macroculture with many microcultures.

Something will win out, either through acceptance of one, or the destruction or loss of others.

[DigitalShadow]

I haven't read beyond this point yet.

I would like to first say thanks for that snowflake comment. I really liked that.

You say there's no universal moral code...

Is there not one, or have we just not accepted one, yet?

Right now humanity interacts with each other on a global scale. Cultures constantly interact with others.

At some point we all have to get along. Over time assimilation will have to occur, and some sort of global code of conduct will be accepted.

We're slowly and slowly moving towards a single macroculture with many microcultures.

Something will win out, either through acceptance of one, or the destruction or loss of others.

I do agree that we are going to need to come up with a set of moral values that everyone around the globe can accept very soon, but I think that needs to be determined based on what is best for society. I don't think that there is already an inherent universal moral code.

[Snow]

Where does morality come from?

My good example.

... and you're welcome.

[Islander]

There is a distinct difference between having a sense of what is right/wrong and following that sense. I was mostly talking about the origin of that sense and what people consider right/wrong which varies greatly between cultures, even with people of the same declared religion. Whether people follow what they feel is right is an entirely different matter which is unique to that person (Free Agency and all).

I think that humans do have an innate urge to do what they consider right, you can call it the Light of Christ or an evolutionary byproduct to help the survival of the species, but I would agree that it exists. Unfortunately sometimes, people allow the temptation of short term benifet outweight their sense of morality or even justify bad things to themselves. I believe that is more of a character trait than something that can be easily taught though.

I like the discussion so far :)

I suggest that such assumptions hold true in "your world" which by virtue of you being in the west and having access to modern media and technology places you within the 3% percent of all living humans. Generalizing on your very privileged condition and extrapolating that it also holds true across the world is misguided.

Morals and ethics as we know them in the West are not values, or even concepts, that are known or cultivate in most of the world. People in most of the world inhabit a very different moral universe. People do not have such levels of social or even self awareness so the discussion does not exist. I am not saying that there may not be some people with serious existential questions but they are statistically negligible.

Whether a person is able to distance him/herself from God by history or tradition does not mean is able to extricate him/herself from or ignore the history and origin of moral and ethical thought. The source is always the same; God.

[DigitalShadow]

I suggest that such assumptions hold true in "your world" which by virtue of you being in the west and having access to modern media and technology places you within the 3% percent of all living humans. Generalizing on your very privileged condition and extrapolating that it also holds true across the world is misguided.

Morals and ethics as we know them in the West are not values, or even concepts, that are known or cultivate in most of the world. People in most of the world inhabit a very different moral universe. People do not have such levels of social or even self awareness so the discussion does not exist. I am not saying that there may not be some people with serious existential questions but they are statistically negligible.

Whether a person is able to distance him/herself from God by history or tradition does not mean is able to extricate him/herself from or ignore the history and origin of moral and ethical thought. The source is always the same; God.

I have no idea what you're on about, but from what I can tell, your argument is:

-You are a sheltered westerner with no idea what the rest of the world is like

-Your argument is therefore wrong

-My assumptions are right because I know the REAL world

I've done my share of travelling and seen plenty of different versions of what morality is aroung the world, which is exactly why I don't think there is a universal source for morality. All the points in your post support my assertion, but then you end with a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense based on the rest of your post:

The source is always the same; God.

You offer absolutely nothing to support why what people consider as moral/immoral varies so much between cultures (which you point out yourself), yet all comes from the same source.

[Islander]

I have no idea what you're on about, but from what I can tell, your argument is:

-You are a sheltered westerner with no idea what the rest of the world is like

-Your argument is therefore wrong

-My assumptions are right because I know the REAL world

I've done my share of travelling and seen plenty of different versions of what morality is aroung the world, which is exactly why I don't think there is a universal source for morality. All the points in your post support my assertion, but then you end with a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense based on the rest of your post:

You offer absolutely nothing to support why what people consider as moral/immoral varies so much between cultures (which you point out yourself), yet all comes from the same source.

We must resist the temptation to shoot from the hip without actually reading the replies carefully, please.

I point to the fact that, intellectually, we reside in a plateau which is 20,000 feet above the rest of most of the world. The kind of existential questions we wrestle with are foreign to the vast majority of humanity. We should not, as a matter of course, stretch through our intellectual lenses in a philosophical exercise, our mores and values as if they would apply/exist to other peoples across the world. That is simply misguided.

Example, in many places in the world it would be OK for me to settle a pieces of land if it has been "abandoned" for some time and "unproductive." In fact the local government would agree with me and give me title of the land based on my need and history of possession. Regardless of whether you have been paying taxes on the land for 20 years. You just have not develop it. That would never happen in the US, regardless. In many places if I am poor I would be justified in robbing from you that are wealthy and my community would agree. In many places in this world waving a flag that is not the country's flag will land you in prison. You can read employment adds in may countries where the employer asks for "Female assistant, 5'8" - 5'11" light or blond hair, clear eyes, excellent presence, good fitness, single, no children." There is no moral or ethical objections in those social groups to the above. I think we would have a real issue with such here in the US.

Before the God of Abraham, most lived at the pleasure and mercy of the King/rulers, which if he liked your sister she would be taken to the palace, by force, to be a sexual toy never to be seen again. You could be expelled from your land, compelled to serve in the army and die for a cause completely foreign to you. Your clan or tribe would go on raiding expeditions to rob and plunder its neighbors as a way to get new wives, cattle, slaves and the like. If I liked your wife, I would take her and kill you if you came to complain. This last one completely normal then and now in some parts. My friend, much of the above remains alive and well today!! The first moral law and punishment attached for transgressing such law was set forth by YHW, the God of Abraham.

We can not confuse socially imposed limits on behavior with the source of true moral and ethical thinking/being. Social controls have to do with rights and control of property. They evolve by trial and error as a means for communal living, and are handed down from generation to generation until their utilitarian value decreases and they are discarded. True ethical and moral behaviors are rooted in the first moral laws, they have not changed, they are enhanced, they are shared the world over and represent the pinnacle of of human achievement. We are engaged in wars currently in order to give 100 million people freedom. A concept that did not evolve by itself but was set forth by God as a right to all. Do not forget that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence just about all other people in the world were subject to a ruler, whether they knew it or not.

We could, 10,000 years later after God had spoken, discuss ethical and moral values in a vacuum as "aspirational values." Time and traditions (the absence of religion) may render the conversation voided of certain elements, namely God as the source, but wishing does not make it so. Secular humanistic views of society are a utopia. Marxism and communism tried and failed miserably at attempting to create an individual and society driven by high values and ethical conduct for work, living and evolving, all in the absolute absence of God. I was in Berlin when the wall came down and we all know what happened to that experiment and during that blip in history very well.

I am certain I will not change your mind in the issue. I just wanted to state some facts for the record.It is quite strange, however, that you try to advocate a completely secular point in a religious forum. I just wonder.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Islander

[VisionOfLehi]

Islander, I think you're off on a different trail of thought than DS was original referring to.

When we're referring to "morals" we're not referring to our OWN morals.

Every individual has a moral code, and all cultures have one, too.

This is the assumption that we're making.

What the discussion is about is where our morals come from. Where does the decision to believe it's okay to take someone's wife and kill the husband, because you want to, come from?

You said it's from "trial and error" handed down "generation to generation."

Great. But the question then is... "WHY are the trying and erring in the first place?"

[Elphaba]

We must resist the temptation to shoot from the hip without actually reading the replies carefully, please.

Based on your past posts, you would do well to do the same.

I point to the fact that, intellectually, we reside in a plateau which is 20,000 feet above the rest of most of the world. The kind of existential questions we wrestle with are foreign to the vast majority of humanity. We should not, as a matter of course, stretch through our intellectual lenses in a philosophical exercise, our mores and values as if they would apply/exist to other peoples across the world. That is simply misguided.

I agree with this. But according to the rest of your post, you do not.

Example, in many places in the world ]it would be OK for me to settle a pieces of land if it has been "abandoned" for some time and "unproductive." What Places?

In fact the local government would agree with me and give me title of the land based on my need and history of possession. Regardless of whether you have been paying taxes on the land for 20 years. You just have not develop it. That would never happen in the US, regardless.

Yes it would, and does happen. Especially in the western states where there is much “public land” available.

In many places if I am poor I would be justified in robbing from you that are wealthy and my community would agree.

What places?

And so what? If the “community” agrees to this, it is not robbery. It is just a different method of taking care of the poor, no better, or worse than any other method.

In many places in this world waving a flag that is not the country's flag will land you in prison.

What Places?

I agree with you, and would in fact, suggest these “many places”’ governments are far more barbaric than indicated by its disallowing other country’s flags.

You can read employment adds in may countries where the employer asks for "Female assistant, 5'8" - 5'11" light or blond hair, clear eyes, excellent presence, good fitness, single, no children."

What countries? And are you suggesting this does not happen in America? If so, you are wrong.

There is no moral or ethical objections in those social groups to the above.

I disagree. You seem to only see morals and ethics in the societies you approve of; yet, you cannot see morals and ethics in others that are different. "Different" does not mean immoral and unethical.

Before the God of Abraham, most lived at the pleasure and mercy of the King/rulers, which if he liked your sister she would be taken to the palace, by force, to be a sexual toy never to be seen again. You could be expelled from your land, compelled to serve in the army and die for a cause completely foreign to you. Your clan or tribe would go on raiding expeditions to rob and plunder its neighbors as a way to get new wives, cattle, slaves and the like. If I liked your wife, I would take her and kill you if you came to complain. This last one completely normal then and now in some parts. My friend, much of the above remains alive and well today!! The first moral law and punishment attached for transgressing such law was set forth by YHW, the God of Abraham.

Are you seriously suggesting that, after the God of Abraham, (whatever that means), these things no longer happened?

We can not confuse socially imposed limits on behavior with the source of true moral and ethical thinking/being.

Later addition: I changed the following paragraph to better explain my point:

No, what we cannot do is allow our government to apply religiously imposed limits on our behavior. However, as an individual, we can all join a church that teaches the religious commandments we believe in, without fear of government interference. This applies to atheists as well.

Social controls have to do with rights and control of property. They evolve by trial and error as a means for communal living, and are handed down from generation to generation until their utilitarian value decreases and they are discarded.

I agree. So what? Our society’s rights, or what I assume you intimate as “civil rights,” did come about because of trial and error, and if that’s how they happen, then so what? The fact that civil rights did become imperative is what is important.

True ethical and moral behaviors are rooted in the first moral laws, they have not changed, they are enhanced, they are shared the world over and represent the pinnacle of of human achievement.

Okay, which is it?

You’ve just written a post about the inferior ethics and morals occurring across the globe. Now you write ethical and moral behaviors shared the world over that represent the pinnacle of human achievement.

No, whatever the first moral laws were, and they weren’t Christian, the world is still enmeshed in pervasive poverty, dictatorships, and violence, especially to its girls/women.

We are engaged in wars currently in order to give 100 million people freedom. A concept that did not evolve by itself but was set forth by God as a right to all.

Are you talking about Iraq?

If so, I am amazed at your comment. You started this post saying how we should not impose our society’s mores on another. And yet here you claim we are bringing freedom to 100 million people. I would think you would realize the freedom we offer is to a society that wants nothing to do with Christianity.

Additionally, who are you bringing freedom to? Because as long as these people insist on living by the law of Sharia, there will never be true freedom. Especially for the women and girls. And its implementation is beyond barbaric.

Do not forget that at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence just about all other people in the world were subject to a ruler, whether they knew it or not.

So what? Within decades many of these people were living in democracies.

We could, 10,000 years later after God had spoken, discuss ethical and moral values in a vacuum as "aspirational values."

Or we could discuss ethical and moral values in a vacuum of “religious values,“ that causes as much suffering as all of your posturing that God is the only source of ethics and morals.

Time and traditions (the absence of religion)

These phrases always irritate me, in that the writer tortures a phrase into meaning something it does not.

“Time and traditions’ do not magically appear in the absence of religion. As long as human beings walk on the planet there will be “time and traditions.” So what? That is a good thing.

If you’re going to come up with a descriptor for the “absence of religion,“ you’re going to have to do better than “time and traditions."

. . . . (absence of may render the conversation voided of certain elements, namely God as the source, but wishing does not make it so.

Societies always create their own gods. That is never going to stop. But the Christian god is no more effective than any other god. How do you know you’ve chosen the correct god?

Secular humanistic views of society are a utopia.

See, here you go again, in spite of your world travels.

Secular humanistic views of society are not utopian, not by any stretch. No real humanists believe in utopia. Again, I’m surprised you didn’t study up on it during your travels.

Marxism and communism tried and failed miserably at attempting to create an individual and society driven by high values and ethical conduct for work, living and evolving, all in the absolute absence of God. I was in Berlin when the wall came down and we all know what happened to that experiment and during that blip in history very well.

The reasons communism failed are so complex, neither you nor I could write a simple reason for it. I would say the most-important factor was corruption, but it is simplistic to claim communism itself caused the corruption.

And I personally believe this corruption is on the rise again, even though Russia is no longer communist. The tearing down of the wall, momentous as it was to all of us, may have been more symbolic, in the long run. We’ll have to wait and see.

Additionally, do you seriously believe there was no corruption in societies that believe in the Christian God?

It is quite strange, however, that you try to advocate a completely secular point in a religious forum. I just wonder.

Some day I am going to write a boilerplate for people like you who don't understand the following, from the Terms and Conditions:

2. Please be conscience of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your continued judgment of those who are agnostic or atheist is churlish, as our viewpoints are welcomed on the board regardless of your disdain. If you don’t like what we write about, then don’t read it. But your bluster that our presence indicates ulterior motives, combined with your boorish “I am a world traveler, and you are not,” belies your own prejudice. I have no problem with your being here. Why should you have a problem with mine?

Elphaba

Edited July 14, 2008 by Elphaba
Change noted paragraph to better explain my point.

[VisionOfLehi]

Okay, I rather like this topic, so I'm going to request the back and forth be taken to PM.

I, myself, should've done that in another topic. But I didn't, and it just went downhill.

Anyway, Elph,

"No, whatever the first moral laws were, and they weren’t Christian, the world is still enmeshed in pervasive poverty, dictatorships, and violence, especially to its girls/women."

That depends on your viewpoint.

As a Christian, I definitely believe certain moral laws ALWAYS existed.