Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

To expand upon that, where should religion leave off and where should common sense/basic morals take over? Like, should religion dictate the majority of your decisions, or should you own trust in a deity (or, in nothing) allow you to believe in Salvation or that you lead a good life or you just live?

Where does religion get taken too far in our daily lives (excluding acts of terror)

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

I think this clip kind of states my stance on how much religion should dictate your own free will:


But hey, I'm not religious, so I guess that's just me.

Hmm, well. I'm curious to what exactly "common sense" is... It would seem that is a term of relativity, upon which not grounded point of reference can be made.


Also, what are these "basic morals", and where do they receive their authority? Are they Objective? Subjective? Maybe we're Nihilists.

This is much more of a philosophical question in many ways, and I would be delighted to have a discussion on that level if you and others are willing.


Well, I think I would formulate the thought process like this for me and my faith in Christ Jesus.


1)The bible is inspired and inerrent, and carries certain obligations
2)It tells me how to conduct myself on a day to day basis, but also how to live my life as a whole.
3) I am thus, obligated to do these things.

It's not an attempt at a Modus Ponens, but I am simply trying to put out a bit of a thought process.

If one is an atheist though, one must remain logically consistant with their world view and be a Nihilist though. That's the beauty of Frederich Neitsche, he was an honest atheist.

Well, I would quite simply refer back to what I listed earlier, but more so that if we are to do something, why should we not do it? What this question proposes is that there is a standard upon which to judge these issues. I would question the philosophical authority of an Objective Morality that is of no grounding. As I can provide such a ground, by way of the existance of God.

I would like to refer you to my post I link to below.


Have you ever had any sexual contact with someone of the same sex? <--- click

Good point

But I still honestly feel that religious texts cannot truly be inerrant due to presentism (much like the U.S. Constitution). I guess I'll need to find a less dramatic and more objective example next time ^.^

Well, the first sentence raises an important issue. One of Hermeneutics and exegesis. Beyond that though, it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the truth of scripture to us. While there is a certain amount of work on our part, I will not deny that. Ultimately, it is a work of the Holy Spirit.

I try to balance religion with everyday life.

I disagree with the whole notion of "dishonest atheism". I know many a good atheist, and they are not Nihilists- in fact, many still retain their cultural backgrounds regarding their parents' religions.

What I mean by basic morality is whether one needs a religious text to justify basic morality. I am further asking whether one needs to believe in a religious text to have morals. And finally, I am asking whether being extremely devout makes one better then the other.

I am not understand your Modus Ponens comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are your implications that "Because I believe in Christ as my savior, and my religion equals my savior, my savior equal my morals?"

Just a note. I am a practicing Jew myself. However, religion brings up many interesting questions.

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

I think; religion shouldn't deny you happiness.
Personally, I have no religion, and I live the way I want to, thinking nothing that I do will affect my afterlife, or whatever happens when you die. But, for those who believe in a religion, they shouldn't break the laws of their religion like so many people do these days. I mean, what's the point in having it if you don't even follow it correctly? But at the same time it shouldn't deny you happiness. So it's all dependant on how seriously I take it, I suppose.

Just don't let it control your life completely.

My point was not that, atheists are liars as all humans are liars. My point was that Frederich Neitsche took the non-existance of God to it's logical conclusion regarding morality.


An atheist who is not a Nihilist, is simply holding two compatible positions. An Objective Morality, requires an Objective Source.


Well, on an epistemological level, how is it that one is to know what these "basic morals" are?

Are they moral because we say they are moral?

No, these things are so even if we do not recognize their truth. It would however, be inconsistant for one who is of an atheistic persuassion to believe that there are Objective Morals.

Depends on what we mean by "better", and in what context. As far as living, there should be a difference, but in many churches today they receive a false gospel, and it has no power to change a person.

[quote]I am not understand your Modus Ponens comment. [/quote
Modus Ponens is a form of Logical Argumentation, and it is the most solid form at that.


1) If P, then Q
2) P
3) Therefor Q



What I was getting at is more of the epistemological side of the matter. The bible is how I learn what is moral/immoral, because of it being inspired and inerrent, and it is essentially, "morality by yahweh".


If you don't mind my asking, would you be Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform?

Yes, yes it does..