Religion And Ethics

[Child of Flame]

There's a book by Roger Zelazny that sports a character, this priest who isn't sure about his beliefs.  Listening to him say the Lord's prayer was funny.  Your post reminded me of that character, Servant.

 

Fear of looking stupid is what keeps a lot of academics from professing faith.  On the other hand, a lot of the ones who do can be pretty agressive about it.  It's kind of funny.

 

I also had a psych professor a long time ago who had a phrase on his office door.

 

It said, "I'm sorry if my karma ran over your dogma." 

 

EDIT:  I simply have to exile myself from my own religion thread.  I'm just too preachy about the whole thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Please don't, I rather like discussing religion, and I enjoy your insight. I've come from a Western Baptist background (my dad's an ex-baptist minister), but I also had a stint at a Catholic boarding school.

 

It's not that I'm afraid of looking stupid, it's that I don't want to be a hypocrite, or dissuade anyone else from converting via my own actions. One of the large reasons I stopped going to church was because I got tired of the hordes of hypocrites, and people who wanted to enforce God's will as stated in the Bible on the masses when the masses really don't give a #@$& what the Bible says, nor should they as they don't believe in it, and religion is a matter of faith, not fact.

 

I cuss, frequently, when in company that isn't offended by it, or online. I don't think there's anything wrong with it really, so long as it's not in a derogatory fashion. Word's meanings are constantly evolving, in 50-100 years, I doubt the F word will be considered nearly as crude as it is now, if at all so. If a word doesn't bother you, or the people around you, and doesn't carry any racial or sexual prejudices with it; there's really no reason not to use it in my mind. But most Christians would disagree.

 

I also don't give a crap whether gays and lesbians are allowed to marry or not. As stated in the above, they for the most part don't believe in the bible, so there's no reason for them to take any stock in what it says. I'm also not even sure what GOD thinks of the matter anymore, as I've recently heard some interesting translations as to what the word that we translated homosexual meant in the original text; it wouldn't be the first time organized religion reworked something for their own agenda. Bush's whole constitutional ammendment on Gay marriage is bunk from the beginning...unless we want to take back the separation of church and state, as gay marriage is at it's heart a RELIGIOUS issue.

 

I don't go out of my way to preach to people, like you Eldar, if it comes up, I state my views, if someone expresses interest; I don't hold any information.

 

There's more than one way to take Jesus last words in Matthew. You can take them to mean that you're supposed to go somewhere and preach just for the sake of preaching, or, like me; you can take it to mean that you're supposed to lead by example as you go, spreading the word to anyone who expresses interest.

 

Just about the whole Bible is subject to interpretation, there's no getting around that. All the different factions of Christianity attest to that.

[Monte Carlo]

Being a Judeo-Pagan-Atheist I have a great deal to comment upon this matter.

 

1. Christianity is very old. OK, you have V1.0 and V1.1 but really Catholicism urgently needs a dogma upgrade. It's views of contraception and homosexuality are just two of the many things that are making it increasingly irrelevant to modern people's lives. If I were shivering in my mud hut in Calabria in 1198, utterly convinced of Original Sin then maybe I'd Believe. But I ain't and I don't. Sorry.

 

2. My wife went to a convent school. She was from a Church of England family, but like many young English women sent for private education she attended a convent. They provide excellent value for money. Like many young English women educated by nuns, she left with a rather sceptical view of religion in general (not confined to Catholicism). I personally find any religion that espouses celibacy as dogma to be inhuman. I also think it explains some of the unfortunate scandals that hit the Catholic church in the US. Let me make it clear: the offence was bad enough. It was the subsequent cover up that made the matter utterly unforgivable. Straight to hell, in fact.

 

3. Saying that, I actually rather enjoy the company of clergymen. They are usually self-effacing, charming and liberal (three things I manifestly am not). The Church of England has always been a quietly recognised haven for gay men, something which I find rather quaint. A gay friend suggests that it's the dressing up and being a martyr that appeals.

 

4. Being a lapsed Jew (well, my mother was Catholic so technically I remain Goyim but I went through all the hoop-la as a kid) I have to say that you really can't beat afternoon tea with a Rabbi. Maybe, living in London, we have pretty laid-back rabbis but the ones I've met crease me up.

 

5. The younger people I know (i.e. early twenties up) seem to me to be actually more spiritual (as opposed to religious) than I was at their age (I find my atheism quite depressing sometimes, to the point where I'd like to make the leap of faith to being an Agnostic but cannot). However, their spiritual needs are clearly not being met by the established religions. The only young people getting fired up about religion in the West are young Muslims. Problem is, that is also linking into to other tangential social problems (racism, unemployment, the international situation). An Islam ain't just a religion; it's a definitive program for political, spiritual, temporal and social life. You don't "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" in Islam, because the definition simply doesn't exist.

 

6. Churches are my favourite buildings in the world. Little medieval English ones, sitting in a field in Sussex.

 

Cheers

MC

['JN]

Let me ask you, would you change your views if folks on message boards were as intolerant of atheists as some of you seem to be towards religion?  Maybe you've been on such boards.  Did you think the group attacking someone for not believing was any worse than attacking me for my belief?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This has happened before. What happens in almost every scenario is that atheists and agnostics populate a board that is run by Christians, and end up getting into numerous debates over spirituality, philosophy and even scientific things like evolution. Most Christians can hold their own when it comes to explaining their beliefs, but they get absolutely butchered when it comes to anything that requires solid proof. 9 out of 10 times, the disbelievers are banned to preserve the image of the forum. It's pretty ironic. Sad, but ironic.

['JN]

I also don't give a crap whether gays and lesbians are allowed to marry or not.  As stated in the above, they for the most part don't believe in the bible, so there's no reason for them to take any stock in what it says.  I'm also not even sure what GOD thinks of the matter anymore, as I've recently heard some interesting translations as to what the word that we translated homosexual meant in the original text; it wouldn't be the first time organized religion reworked something for their own agenda.  Bush's whole constitutional ammendment on Gay marriage is bunk from the beginning...unless we want to take back the separation of church and state, as gay marriage is at it's heart a RELIGIOUS issue. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if two gay atheists get married? How is that religious? Marriage can be traced back to a religious foundation in almost all societies, but it has since moved beyond that and is now a legal term more than anything else. Religion cannot be the deciding factor in the law.

[Phosphor]

This has happened before. What happens in almost every scenario is that atheists and agnostics populate a board that is run by Christians, and end up getting into numerous debates over spirituality, philosophy and even scientific things like evolution. Most Christians can hold their own when it comes to explaining their beliefs, but they get absolutely butchered when it comes to anything that requires solid proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The being "butchered" notion is one of perspective. Faith is supposed to transcend proof, that's the whole point of faith. So when an atheist demans solid proof of faith, the believer cannot provide it, and so another atheist will see that as being "butchered" in the arguement.

I'm rather suspect of atheists who constantly demand proof. They strike me as either just plain antagonistic and smug, or perhaps not sure of their own atheism and fear that perhaps they are wrong, and so want proof.

 

9 out of 10 times, the disbelievers are banned to preserve the image of the forum. It's pretty ironic. Sad, but ironic.

 

What do you expect on a Christian board? They're not there soley to facilitate belief vs non-belief arguements.

 

Religion cannot be the deciding factor in the law

 

It shouldn't be, but it is. If you look at many of our laws, you'll see they have roots in religious teachings. Makes sense, sometimes, as those teachings are just good sense. But using religious ideology to dictate someone's private life and relationships is so wrong it makes my blood boil.

[Janmanden]

I am an atheist too. I think religious people and the notion of a God is a somewhat medieval, superstitous and psychopathic approach to life, but I won't discard it as an 'Evil' as it clearly serves as both a framework for these people's morals as well as creating common grounds for their life in general. Religion offers a lot of easy solutions to the big concepts in life, but as long it doesnt affect me in any way I think it can be just as good for them as anything else, since they clearly don't care about the truth. Someone who thanks the lord for his luck in life definitely seems more sympathetic than someone who brags about his abilities, hehe.

 

When I'm caught in the rain unprepared on my bicycle I shout at the sky and damn the norse gods. hehe.

 

In the end it's all a question about education and the morals of society and the people that caretakes your upbringing...and whether or not your folks are deeply religious or not, most of us are subject to the same influences and reasoning.

['JN]

The being "butchered" notion is one of perspective. Faith is supposed to transcend proof, that's the whole point of faith. So when an atheist demans solid proof of faith, the believer cannot provide it, and so another atheist will see that as being "butchered" in the arguement.

I'm rather suspect of atheists who constantly demand proof. They strike me as either just plain antagonistic and smug, or perhaps not sure of their own atheism and fear that perhaps they are wrong, and so want proof.

 

If they cannot provide that proof, then they would simply say so and leave it at that. That is not the case. Christians have a tendency to throw themselves into arguments that they can't win, because they think that the Bible is all the proof that they need. This is not the case. Take evolution for example. Christians challenge this notion all the time, and usually end up with a huge stack of evidence to which they can respond with nothing but Bible quotes. It is clear who has the stronger case.

 

The smug notion does go both ways, but being smug is easier to justify when you have a solid foundation to back it up with instead of just your "faith". Faith can't prove anything to anyone else, unless you are trying to show that you are naive.

 

What do you expect on a Christian board? They're not there soley to facilitate belief vs non-belief arguements.

 

It's pretty much all that they do. It's like their weak spot. I don't expect anything different from them because they're Christians (when it comes to the boards anyway). I expect the same thing from them that I expect from any other board, a fair structure for debate, which doesn't include people abusing their power to prevent themselves from losing face. Banning someone because they beat you in an argument is childish and petty, no matter who does it.

 

It shouldn't be, but it is. If you look at many of our laws, you'll see they have roots in religious teachings. Makes sense, sometimes, as those teachings are just good sense. But using religious ideology to dictate someone's private life and relationships is so wrong it makes my blood boil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simple morality and religion are not one in the same. You don't need to be religious to have morals. Many of our laws do have religious roots, but you can't use that as a rationale for them. Even if you submit that religion does play a factor in government, there is more than one religion out there, so it's presumptuous of a Christian or anyone else to say that their religion should be the standard for the law.

[Cantousent]

I've never been to a board specifically set up for religious discussions. I will say, however, that I think most Christians who argue most strenuously for religion get bested. This is, largely, because they argue from a position of weakness. One should never demand that an opponent prove a negative. The onus lies squarely upon the shoulders of any person making a claim to prove it, not the person questioning the claim.

 

Proof for the existence of God does not exist. ...Or, at least, solid irrefutable proof of the existence of God does not exist. If there were, argument over the matter would probably be long gone. There is no need for faith in something that is inherently true and taken for granted.

 

Many Christians also tend to argue against what proof we do have. For instance, I have a friend at school who has some heated arguments with our atheist friends. She argues that the world is only 10,000 years old. Now, maybe the world is only 10,000 old. That might be true. ...But quite unlikely unless all of science is based upon lies.

 

The age of the earth or the nature of evolution don't bear upon my belief in God. I see the Lord as the sole creator of the universe. In one sense, that might be galling to some folks. In another sense, why should they care. I could understand if I bullied people over it, but the way I see it, I look for something beyond but I interact on the earth according to my personal moral compass. In other words, I interact on the earth in the same way everyone else does, religious or atheist.

 

As for religion being the basis for law... Religion is the basis for law altogether. Civil codes sprang from religion. However, I prefer a system that find a common moral ground and sets a non-religious standard for law. Most Christians benefit from the fact that the law in the United States is, in principle, secular. We have enough problems as it is without a sectarian law system.

 

However, the basic tenets of the vast majority of religions serve as a pretty good template for law. Don't kill, steal, cheat, etc. etc. These aren't wild ideas. The only thing missing from secular law is any litmus test based on religion. Since I don't particularly relish the idea of being persecuted by another religion and balk at the idea of persecuting someone else based on his, I'll be perfectly happy with separating Church and state/law.

[Child of Flame]

If they cannot provide that proof, then they would simply say so and leave it at that. That is not the case. Christians have a tendency to throw themselves into arguments that they can't win, because they think that the Bible is all the proof that they need. This is not the case. Take evolution for example. Christians challenge this notion all the time, and usually end up with a huge stack of evidence to which they can respond with nothing but Bible quotes. It is clear who has the stronger case. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You're absolutely right, and that's crap, because like I said, most people don't give a crap what the bible says; and also as I already said, just about the entire bible is subject to interpretation. I had a science teacher for two years in highschool who also realized this, and while I didn't agree with alot of religious beliefs he held; he had the creation vs. evolution debate arguments down pat, no bible quotes included. I learned everything about debating that particular subject that I know from him, and I'm pretty confident I can provide just as strong a case for creation, as any evolutionist can for evolution; without bringing the bible into it at all. I do tend to favor a long creation period, or a creation with time built in theory, but that's beside the point as you have to bring the bible in to nitpick that. Truth is though, there really isn't any definitive proof for creation, or evolution, short of inventing a time machine and going back in time to see how things really happened.

 

 

1)  I've never been to a board specifically set up for religious discussions.  I will say, however, that I think most Christians who argue most strenuously for religion get bested.  This is, largely, because they argue from a position of weakness.  One should never demand that an opponent prove a negative.  The onus lies squarely upon the shoulders of any person making a claim to prove it, not the person questioning the claim.

 

2)  Proof for the existence of God does not exist.  ...Or, at least, solid irrefutable proof of the existence of God does not exist.  If there were, argument over the matter would probably be long gone.  There is no need for faith in something that is inherently true and taken for granted.

 

3)  Many Christians also tend to argue against what proof we do have.  For instance, I have a friend at school who has some heated arguments with our atheist friends.  She argues that the world is only 10,000 years old.  Now, maybe the world is only 10,000 old.  That might be true.  ...But quite unlikely unless all of science is based upon lies.

 

4)  The age of the earth or the nature of evolution don't bear upon my belief in God.  I see the Lord as the sole creator of the universe.  In one sense, that might be galling to some folks.  In another sense, why should they care.  I could understand if I bullied people over it, but the way I see it, I look for something beyond but I interact on the earth according to my personal moral compass.  In other words, I interact on the earth in the same way everyone else does, religious or atheist.

 

5)  As for religion being the basis for law...  Religion is the basis for law altogether.  Civil codes sprang from religion.  However, I prefer a system that find a common moral ground and sets a non-religious standard for law.  Most Christians benefit from the fact that the law in the United States is, in principle, secular.  We have enough problems as it is without a sectarian law system.

 

6)  However, the basic tenets of the vast majority of religions serve as a pretty good template for law.  Don't kill, steal, cheat, etc. etc.  These aren't wild ideas.  The only thing missing from secular law is any litmus test based on religion.  Since I don't particularly relish the idea of being persecuted by another religion and balk at the idea of persecuting someone else based on his, I'll be perfectly happy with separating Church and state/law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

1) Neither have I, but I have argued religion with many, many people. Truth is, I'm such a loose cannon, that they'd probably ban me whether I was supporting them for the most part or not.

 

2) I totally agree. Just like proof for most scientific theories accepted more or less as fact do not exist. B)

 

3) This is exactly why I'd probably be banned from a board for religious debate. I love to pick apart other Christian's arguments for creation/evolution, homosexuality etc.; whether I agree with their conclusion or not, I have fun picking up on the loopholes of whatever argument they're making, simply because I think they've come at whatever conclusion from improper means. Plus, it's just plain fun to screw with the fellow believer's, rather like Loki and his speech on the Walrus and the Carpenter.

 

4) I agree, just like I agree with the fact that it doesn't matter whether Jesus had brothers and sisters or not. (I personally think he did, even the priest I knew wouldn't come out directly and say it, but he didnt' dismiss it. B) )

 

5) Yes, and this has served us well up until now, but times are a changin'.

 

6) And this point is where I primarily disagree with Bush. While most of the OT laws are pretty much no brainer's as to whether they're right or not (Don't kill, don't steal, don't go messing around when you're married, etc. ); things such as homosexuality are more of a shade of grey, and I don't think it's going to make much of a difference one way or the other.....I don't really agree with them teaching that homosexual relations are natural in Sex Ed., of course I don't agree with state mandated sexual education period. <shrugs>

 

All in all, I think that they've served us well until now, but now that we have a more or less solid legal system, I think we need to seperate the law a bit more from religion, as I believe the founding father's intended.

 

My $2.00

[Cantousent]

Actually, I'm quite happy to see religion separated from law myself. Like I said, I don't want to end up being persecuted based on my religion. Separation of Church and State is a good principle for everyone, including Christians.

[Monte Carlo]

How do you square this with Islam, where the notion of secularity doesn't even come into the equation?

[Tigranes]

Well, I'm in a weird spot myself; attending church for a while - Anglican Protestant, in name, but it's really just your average hodge-podge vaguely Protestant church. And I can't disagree with most of the Bible's teachings (moral teachings, not discussions over its historical or scientific value that I consider pointless), but personally can't get that faith jump to believe in God. But then, I am young, so I'm giving it time to see how I go.

 

Usually my take is that the Bible was never written as a historical account, or even a factual handbook; it was a collection of believers in a religion full of the said religion's teachings, and often not literal. I know many may disagree, but I believe that the Bible does not argue Jesus actually performed most of his miracles, except perhaps the resurrection, and there was no worldwide flood, etc. I'm not saying that I don't believe it, I'm saying that I believe the Bible is not trying to say that at all. This is all my opinion, of course - feel free to demolish it and I'd be happy to read it - that the Bible has moral and spiritual guidance to give, and it gives so in any way possible by the eloquency it is lent by the writing skills of the twentysomething Christians.

 

To ground back my points to somewhere concrete, I have little association with the modern network of churches for spiritual and religious guidance; everyone finds their own way to religion, and while they may be helped the churches have become an unorganised morass of publicised institutions that are pressured by monetary needs, public appearance, the changing values of the society (and, of course, most churches' inability to stand firm with any value but bend to the perceived rightness of the changing world), and their relationships with other churches and for some the Papacy. Urban II is a Pope I believe was an excellent one, the Church having waded, and now wading further, into a time of great religious debate and pressure. Yet when I read his latest statement about the role of women in the Christian religion, this is shown clearly. I am in no way opposed to feminism, gender equality or anything of the sort; yet this is, just like homosexuality (which I support), another example where the Church changes its values simply for the sake of surviving, and avoiding the scorn of the world. If society changed in future centuries to, say, recognise the clear differences between genders to a degree that discrimination against gender was seen as a sensible and logical thing, I have little doubt that the Church of that time would "get with the times" and reverse their edict once again. It does little to bolster its reliability.

 

Proof for the existence of God does not exist; there doesn't need to be one. To take the argument further, we don't have any clear proof of *anything*. You can't prove your own thoughts since for all you know you are manipulated, drugged, hallucinating, whatever; you can't prove the existence or presenc of any material thing in the world; there can be no irrefutable proof or anything. There is always unconditional, illogical belief involved, and it is simply that our conscious logic defies the existence of an omniscient deity more readily than the shape of reality and whatnot.

 

I have heard said that the age of the earth and so forth does not apply to the debate on Christianity because God exists and presides outside the realms and confines of time, and of course this means he operates in a way quite very alien and unimaginable to us. The last part is an integral part of accepting the existence of God, but I wonder what the rest of you think about the Time thing.

 

Most religions have many, if not most (Christianity and Islam), tenets that are the same, or parallel, with each other. Why? Because we are talking about religions that were born, or majorly developped, after the formation of basic human societies. In this basic human society, we recognised that if everybody killed each other wantonly we would all die; so, most/all religions declared reasonless murder as wrong. That's it. Religion is, in its core, a social law seperate of a secular government whose most fundamental values rest upon the perceived important values of the society that gave birth to the said religion. If a new religion began in 50 years time, it will surely have, as one of its most important commands, that you shall not discriminate on the colour of someone's skin, their gender, etc. Then doesn't this contradict my baulking at the church's changing values? Yes, it does, but this is my reasoning; I argue this as a man who cannot bring himself, for now or for ever, to believe in a deity, only appreciate the values of the religion. Thus this is my viewpoint of religion; but if one believes in the Christian God, say, then one believes in his eternal wisdom; so why the wishy-washyness that picks up whatever is good to oppose or love? Oppose communism, go ahead.

 

In this vein, I respect Islam much more, because for all its severity it has maintained much more of a spine, and what I see as a true religious belief. We may cry horrible at women not being able to go out on their own, and whatever; but *however* heinous anything they do may seem to us, we must realise that our values of right and wrong are firstly formed with contribution from our environment and our acquaintances, and secondly that no matter what we have to respect any person that strives for what he believes to be right. They cross the line when they kill other people to enforce their own vision; but if they don't harm or infringe upon other people, then they have just as much right to follow Islam in the admirably true way, as we do to have pathetically low church turnouts in some parts of the western world.

[Craftsman]

Notice how all the major world religions have very similar morals? Hmmm

[Cantousent]

The bible is a work of literature. Sure, parts of it offend some folks, that's the nature of the written word, but the work itself is partly a historical accont, partly the codification of customs and mores, an expression of religious belief, and a statement of cultural pride. It can be many things to the writers and the people of that time. It can also be another thing to people of different times. The only essential function of the bible is to serve as a basis for personal morals. On the other hand, it's a valuable work for study in it's own right as an ancient work of literature.

 

I can't speak for Muslims. I don't have anything against Islam as such, but my perspective on changing values differs from yours Tigranes. I think it's good that Churches have some element of change. Why?

 

The core values of Christianity boil down to two essential elements: that you should love your neighbor as yourself and that you should love God with all your heart, mind and soul. Religious works are often wrought with exhortations and often those exhortations reflect something timely for the author that must be actively read in good conscience by later readers. I will never respect someone for persecuting women. Likewise, I don't find the nature of any persons sexual preference to be a good basis for judging his moral character.

 

Now, when your fervor at promoting your faith leads you to the point of denying dignity to another human being, I balk at the idea. Not only that, but I think dogma must always take a back seat to conscience. My conscience dictates that I remain a Roman Catholic.

 

Furthermore, while I also admire folks who hang doggedly on to their convictions, I only admire them in as much as they retain their convictions. What their convictions dictate are an entirely different matter. I cannot say what is undoubtedly right, but I know that the institutional abuse of women is wrong. The parts of Catholic history in which the chruch acted unjustly are not only fair game to change, they must be changed. Change in a religious institution is not a bad thing as long as the central message, the vital message of redemption, is present.

 

You know, most folks attack the church for not changing enough. Some folks attack it for changing too much.

 

Some folks call me crazy for believing in God. Other folks claim I must, because of my personal views, be an atheist at heart. *shrug* I can only account for my actions and, especially on matters of religion or belief, I answer to a higher power.

[Janmanden]

Notice how all the major world religions have very similar morals? Hmmm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

None of those 'bibles' were subject to any divine influence, but adapted by People to life as it was/is for People. Otherwise, if they made totally unreasonable claims affecting the majority of people negatively, they would have been discarded ages ago, imho.

['JN]

None of those 'bibles' were subject to any divine influence, but adapted by People to life as it was/is for People. Otherwise, if they made totally unreasonable claims affecting the majority of people negatively, they would have been discarded ages ago, imho.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The purpose of a religious document such as a "Bible" is to instruct people on how to live their lives. This is more or less the purpose of religion, and that is why governments have used it as a tool more than anything else.

[Phosphor]

The bible was, in addition to a guide for living one's life, a sort of survival guide. 2000 years ago, people lived in rather isolated tribes, and survival was hard. Hence you get stuff like "go forth and multiply" and other reproductive instructions and sexual behaviour restrictions.

Of course, in our extremely over-populated world these aspects are no longer valid, but because they're In The Bible, they're taken as, well, holy writ.

 

I agree with a lot of the general "be nice to people, be a good person" stuff in the bible, but there's stuff that just isn't applicable anymore, and it's destructive to follow it as, uh, gospel.

[Adria Teksuni]

Interesting point, Phosphor, but the basic "rules", the Ten Commandments, are still a pretty good roadmap, especially in today's world. Only, instead of coveting your neighbour's ass, you covet his Ferarri.

[Cantousent]

hahahaha. That was funny, Adria.

 

I think it's a good idea to separate fundamental moral foundations from specific, often quite specific, cultural information.

 

On its face, I have to agree with the idea that religion is a basis for behavior. Because of that fact, it has always been embroiled in the political process. Sometimes religion is separated from the actual government and the government uses religion for its own purposes. Sometimes, religion is either the government or seeks to use the government for its own purposes.

 

I don't mind folks being hostile to religion. Religious folks for thousands of years have gone out of their way to give religion a bad name. That's why I prefer to think that we're better off talking about religion later and living well now. An argument for virtue is much more compelling when it comes from someone who is actually virtuous. heh heh

[Enoch]

Interesting point, Phosphor, but the basic "rules", the Ten Commandments, are still a pretty good roadmap, especially in today's world.  Only, instead of coveting your neighbour's ass, you covet his Ferarri.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lets flesh this out (paraphrased from Exodus 20, KJV):

 

 

1)  I am the Lord thy God, put no other gods before me.

2)  No graven images.

3)  Don't take the lord's name in vain.

4)  Keep the Sabbath.

These four are important to the procedural worship of Yahweh, not very important otherwise.

 

5)  Honor your parents.

I'd file this as good advice (happy families are nice) rather than a moral principle. But, I don't think it's too controversial to say that some parents are not particularly worthy of honor.

 

6)  No murder.

7)  No adultery.

  No theft.

9)  Don't bear false witness.

Here are the real moral principles. The same ones are pretty universal in any moral or legal code (before or since the spread of hebraic monotheism).

 

10)  Don't covet house/wife/servant/livestock.

This one is touchy. True, envy and jealousy are not to be encouraged, but it's the one that human beings are set up to fail (desiring is pretty intrinsic in human nature). As such, I think that the better moral principle is to be mindful of what you desire, and not to let it lead you to some of the more serious stuff in 6-9.

 

 

By themselves, the 10 are the barest of minimums. There's nothing there about helping the less fortunate, or treating people with respect, or taking care of your children, etc. Granted, much of that stuff was articulated in the other OT parables and the teachings of Jesus. But still, their absence does cut into the arguments of those who promote the commandments as a definitive guide.

[Janmanden]

5)  Honor your parents.

I'd file this as good advice (happy families are nice) rather than a moral principle. But, I don't think it's too controversial to say that some parents are not particularly worthy of honor.

 

Honor your homocidal manic parent dad who walked out on your mother before you were born and returned 20 years later and chopped here to pieces...anything within Reason of course, but unless you end up as mewling vegetable your parents must have done something rigth...something worthy of respect....they could have lived happily ever after but they chose instead to have you...or me.

 

But overall those commandments is the law of the bible, and all those uh, stories of the apostles flesh them out into something that can either be interpreted any way you like it or followed fanatically...if in doubt check the commandments. I guess that's the way it works...but what do I know, I'm the atheist.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Monotheism will lead to monoculture.

 

Monoculture is also monoracial.

 

A Monoracial world lacks all difference.

 

Monotheism will lead to the death of freedom.

 

Thus I conclude that Monotheism is tyranny, and based in the idea of domination.

[Cantousent]

That might be more convincing if the democracies of the western world weren't born out of Monotheistic cultures.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

That might be more convincing if the democracies of the western world weren't born out of Monotheistic cultures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That'd be okay if that was a fact Eldar. Democracy was around well before monotheism.

[Cantousent]

Successful democracies weren't around, though.

 

Look at it this way, we can call a lot of tribal groups more or less democratic, but that's simply not the same thing as a democracy. Athens was clearly a democracy, not only in giving citizens a say in public matters, but in developing democratic institutions. I am a great admirer of the Athenian democracy. I'm a great admirer of Pericles.

 

Personally, I think the Athenian democracy gets a bum wrap, especially since folks judged that democracies were unstable and undesireable based on the Athenian example. The examples of ancient democracies were one of the biggest arguments against democracy in the United States. Still, the western democracies did flourish in monotheistic cultures. Even if democracies did exist, that still doesn't take away the fact that western Christians embraced democracy in the end.

 

Even more, the western democracies which, at that time, were still Christian in nature, led the world in free press, womens rights, and a plethora of other democratic and changing themes. Hell, France, moreso than most nations, has been a progressive force for centuries.

 

I don't mind talking frankly about those times and areas where Christianity and Christians have failed. I would just hope that folks would be willing to see the good that has come of it. ...And I'm not even talking in a religious sense. I'm talking about society and social issues.