"You're supposed to have faith." Biggest cop out

[General Zod]

I'm still waiting on you to address my point about pointing out any humanist ethics systems that advocate even half the shit the Bible does.

I can't. Does that make the good parts of the Bible irrelevant?

Would you be spouting the same lines of apologetic bullshit for Mein Kampf if I found lines that said "Love thy fellow German"?

[CaptJodan]

I can't. Does that make the good parts of the Bible irrelevant?

It makes them inferior to ethical systems which don't contradict themselves, which the Bible does. An ethical text advocating loving thy neighbor is fine and good...unless your neighbor happens to be gay, or sleeping with your wife, or something else. Or maybe you still love them as you beat them to death with stones.

An ethical system that doesn't include non-ethical behavior as a positive thing(such as murder) is superior to the Bible, and would make it basically irrelevant, yes.

Their own interests. They merely use religion as a pretext.

Bullshit. Homosexuality is a prime example of how this isn't the case. There are likely millions of closeted homosexuals raised under a religious doctrine who, if they were allowed to follow their own interests, wouldn't have to fear for their very lives. Others, on a personal level, try to force themselves not to be homosexual and lead very miserable existences because of it. They are basing these feelings on the moral and ethical prinicpals of a book that says they should not be homosexual.

The religion itself teaches homosexuality is wrong, thus the religion is what is at fault.

[Astarial]

I'm still waiting on you to address my point about pointing out any humanist ethics systems that advocate even half the shit the Bible does.

I can't. Does that make the good parts of the Bible irrelevant?

Would you be spouting the same lines of apologetic bullshit for Mein Kampf if I found lines that said "Love thy fellow German"?

That the Bible (or Mein Kampf, were it to actually contain such a line) combines good with bad does not mean that the good advice is not good, it just means that the book is flawed. I, personally, would not want to base my life on something that is wrong in so many ways, or put my faith in a god who is either very very wrong, or very very cruel.

[General Zod]

That the Bible (or Mein Kampf, were it to actually contain such a line) combines good with bad does not mean that the good advice is not good, it just means that the book is flawed. I, personally, would not want to base my life on something that is wrong in so many ways, or put my faith in a god who is either very very wrong, or very very cruel.

When you're comparing an entire ethical system vs another entire ethical system, the one with less harmful bullshit in it is typically the superior ethical system. In this case humanist systems that espouse minimizing harm are vastly superior to ethic systems that can be distilled into "Do not disobey our sky pixie."

[Astarial]

Bullshit. Homosexuality is a prime example of how this isn't the case. There are likely millions of closeted homosexuals raised under a religious doctrine who, if they were allowed to follow their own interests, wouldn't have to fear for their very lives. Others, on a personal level, try to force themselves not to be homosexual and lead very miserable existences because of it. They are basing these feelings on the moral and ethical prinicpals of a book that says they should not be homosexual.

The religion itself teaches homosexuality is wrong, thus the religion is what is at fault.

In that case, the religion (I presume you're referring to christianity) is wrong, and the people who believe that crap are ignorant.

Either the Old Testament is irrelevant and replaced by the New Testament, and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (whether it's actually condemned is another debate), or it's still relevant and everyone is going to Hell for wearing synthetic fabric or crop-cycling.

If you're referring to Judaism, either the rules in Leviticus can be reinterpreted for modern times or they can't. Same dilemma as above.

[Astarial]

That the Bible (or Mein Kampf, were it to actually contain such a line) combines good with bad does not mean that the good advice is not good, it just means that the book is flawed. I, personally, would not want to base my life on something that is wrong in so many ways, or put my faith in a god who is either very very wrong, or very very cruel.

When you're comparing an entire ethical system vs another entire ethical system, the one with less harmful bullshit in it is typically the superior ethical system. In this case humanist systems that espouse minimizing harm are vastly superior to ethic systems that can be distilled into "Do not disobey our sky pixie."

Well of course. I don't disagree with you. My point was that the good ideas in the Bible are still good ideas, even if the Bible as a whole is flawed and nothin to base a system off of.

[CaptJodan]

In that case, the religion (I presume you're referring to christianity) is wrong, and the people who believe that crap are ignorant.

Either the Old Testament is irrelevant and replaced by the New Testament, and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality (whether it's actually condemned is another debate), or it's still relevant and everyone is going to Hell for wearing synthetic fabric or crop-cycling.

While the NT, as far as I know, doesn't speak to violence against homosexuality, it certainly places homosexuals in the camp of sinners that will never reach heaven no matter their works. It's an ethical system that still lends people to immediately associate such people as lower forms of humanity.

Well of course. I don't disagree with you. My point was that the good ideas in the Bible are still good ideas, even if the Bible as a whole is flawed and nothin to base a system off of.

It goes back to Hugh's original question from what I recall, why a human based ethical system is superior to one based on God. I don't think anyone disputes that there is some good ethical snippets in the Bible. But a person is going to get a lot more out of a humanistic style of ethics than they will ever get from the Bible, and it will likely INCLUDE many, if not all of the good parts from the Bible, while leaving out the bad.

[Astarial]

While the NT, as far as I know, doesn't speak to violence against homosexuality, it certainly places homosexuals in the camp of sinners that will never reach heaven no matter their works. It's an ethical system that still lends people to immediately associate such people as lower forms of humanity.

(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(9) We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers.

It's not a crime to be homosexual, it's a crime to practice it.

But I see your point.

[CaptJodan]

(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That's interesting, and shows how varieties of Bibles can vary with simple words. I'm not sure what version you're quoting from, but I dug out my old Bible that I was given as a kid which is the New King James version.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Incidentally, I find the first part of the preface especailly telling.

You will be happy to know that the text of the Children's Bible, which is called the New King James Version, is especially suiteable for the young.

It is not a brand new version, the traditional King James Version that has been beloved for centuries, but where necessary, brought up to date in language.

Either way, it seems it depends largely on the version you read as to whether being homosexual or the act is the sin.

[General Zod]

It's not a crime to be homosexual, it's a crime to practice it.

But I see your point.

The fact that Christianity equates thinking about committing a sin to be as bad as actually committing one makes that point somewhat moot.

[Coyote]

It seems odd to note that --correct me if I'm wrong-- people here are demanding that religious believers should adhere to the most extreme, reactionary, violent and abusive froms of their respective religions.

[Astarial]

It's not a crime to be homosexual, it's a crime to practice it.

But I see your point.

The fact that Christianity equates thinking about committing a sin to be as bad as actually committing one makes that point somewhat moot.

Do you have a biblical quote on that, or is that part of the extrabiblical teachings? If the latter, then it'll largely depend on which denomination is being asked.

[Astarial]

It seems odd to note that --correct me if I'm wrong-- people here are demanding that religious believers should adhere to the most extreme, reactionary, violent and abusive froms of their respective religions.

Either all of it can be reinterpreted for modern standards, or none of it can. The demand is that they stop being fucking hypocrites, not necessarily that they be the most extreme.

[Patrick Degan]

Bullshit —just what do you think these "hypocrites" are basing their actions on in the first place?

Their own interests. They merely use religion as a pretext.

Ahhhh yes, that tired old argument. The problem with it is that the religion is what gives basis to the pretext as well as its alleged authority.

[Coyote]

Either all of it can be reinterpreted for modern standards, or none of it can. The demand is that they stop being fucking hypocrites, not necessarily that they be the most extreme.

The problem is, the holy books have been tinkered with incessantly by meddlesome priests or kings-- motivate dby their own phobias or shortcomings, or, passages that were added to serve as allegorical fear-stokers for an event that was relevant at that time, but has now long since passed. Even revisions who want to go back and "find the historical Jesus" or seek out the quotes that can "undeniably" be linked to him could in fact be working with a composite character made up of numerous different men who passed themselves off as Messianic figures Back In The Day.

So going back and changing the mishmash to more adequately suit the modern times is not, IMO, a bad thing. It shows that the times have changed despite, in some cases, the best [worst] efforts of the intolerant. It may, in fact, be bringing the original intent of "be nice to each other" back to the forefront where it belongs (we may well never know exactly what was really writ those years ago, exactly).

I know that many here would like to see all religion gone from the world, but we also all know that in reality that day will not be around the corner, if indeed at all. So since there is no magic wand to wish away religion, then personally I'd encourage the modern interpretations of more tolerant religion over their brutish forebears any day.

[General Zod]

It's not a crime to be homosexual, it's a crime to practice it.

But I see your point.

The fact that Christianity equates thinking about committing a sin to be as bad as actually committing one makes that point somewhat moot.

Do you have a biblical quote on that, or is that part of the extrabiblical teachings? If the latter, then it'll largely depend on which denomination is being asked.

Zechariah 8:17 And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

Matthew 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

[General Zod]

It seems odd to note that --correct me if I'm wrong-- people here are demanding that religious believers should adhere to the most extreme, reactionary, violent and abusive froms of their respective religions.

We're not the ones who believe in a holy book which dedicates about half the space in it to various things that offend its magic sky pixie and why people who commit them should be killed, and then proceed to ignore half of them when it's convenient to do so.

[Coyote]

We're not the ones who believe in a holy book which dedicates about half the space in it to various things that offend its magic sky pixie and why people who commit them should be killed, and then proceed to ignore half of them when it's convenient to do so.

Is there any facet of human society, from parenting to politics, that does not do this at some point, though? What you're aiming at is a fundamental part of human nature; to issue contradictory orders and reconcile them in sometimes bizarre ways.

Modern liberal religions are just the latest patch to the program. Christianity during the Crusades and Inquisition was far more bloody and willing to engage in penitential warfare; now this is considered primitive. Some still engage in it but they are seen as embarassments by most established churches. The violent believers that do things like abortion doctor killings and clinic bombings frequently complain that "mainstream religion" of today has become "too soft".

The idea of religions voluntarily coming to their senses and emphasising peace & love and setting aside intolerance and judgement into an increasingly darker and further away closet is, I'd consider, a positive trend.

[General Zod]

Is there any facet of human society, from parenting to politics, that does not do this at some point, though? What you're aiming at is a fundamental part of human nature; to issue contradictory orders and reconcile them in sometimes bizarre ways.

I don't see what's contradictory about pointing out that people are following a broken ethics system.

The idea of religions voluntarily coming to their senses and emphasising peace & love and setting aside intolerance and judgement into an increasingly darker and further away closet is, I'd consider, a positive trend.

The fact that the vast majority of sweeping changes in religion come from groups deciding that they're sick of being oppressed and doing something about it or from the group that was oppressing them collapsing in on itself seem to contradict this.

[Coyote]

I don't see what's contradictory about pointing out that people are following a broken ethics system.

Communism is a broken ethic system. Capitalism is a broken ethics system. Democracy is a broken ethics system. Socialism. The religions are by no means alone in this.

The fact that the vast majority of sweeping changes in religion come from groups deciding that they're sick of being oppressed and doing something about it or from the group that was oppressing them collapsing in on itself seem to contradict this.

What do you mean by this? When Christianity moved away from the idea of penitential warfare and Inquisition, how did the sufferers of those facets of Christianity rise up and force change on them? Or, how did the Church itself collapse from the weight of empire? The Church still exists, in many forms, some are the freewheeling love-everybody-as-you-brother '70's type churches left over from the protest era. The Church that once sanctioned penitential warfare now disavows it; the Church that once sanctioned anti-Semitism has come out and disavowed it and apologized for doing nothing and said that Jews are co-religionists, and the break-aways that refuse that message are considered extremist splinter groups-- not mainstream anymore.

Don't get the idea that I'm saying that religion is all warm and fuzzy because I'm not. I'm quite well aware of the evils religion has caused, and can still cause, to this day. What I'm saying is that many mainstream religions today, at least in the West, have gone to a more tolerant and watered down version that would not actually tolerate a great deal of things that are writ in their own Bible. A modern priest/minister that truly advocated the stoning death of a child that used a swear word to his parents would not be embraced as a great social leader-- he'd more likely end up in a rubber room.

[CaptJodan]

I think the problem I have stems from the fact that even if you get rid of all the bad, support all the good and positive aspects of....let's just do Christianity for sake of ease, you're still left with an INCOMPLETE ethics system, at least if you base it off the Bible alone. Much of it doesn't cover the last 2000 years of progress, and what might still apply is awfully vague and open for people to twist into their own meanings easier than most other systems.

And I think there's a further problem with the nature of a religion as an ethics system, especially with regard to most monotheistic varieties. You have a large segment of that faith that won't tow the party line because the words themselves did not come from God/Allah/whatever, but came from man, which in turn likely came from SECULAR sources. Many see it now as a perversion.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that certain areas of religion are starting to think in more secular terms, and if they can tractor their congregation along with them, so much the better. But I think the more secularized or liberal a religion becomes, the harder it is to justify why the religion part of it is necessary when a humanistic or other form of ethics system is basically what the religion is being remodeled as. And if the religion IS being remodeled thusly, then it shows the superiority of secular based ethics over religious based.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't see what's contradictory about pointing out that people are following a broken ethics system.

Communism is a broken ethic system. Capitalism is a broken ethics system. Democracy is a broken ethics system. Socialism. The religions are by no means alone in this.

No, Communism is a broken political system which has been largely abandoned. And though the latter three are flawed, they are subject to improvement and refinement and have changed through the last 250 years to reflect changes in human society.

The religions are alone in that for whatever goldplating and amelioration of their harsher bits, they still derive their basis and authority from outdated texts, and we've just seen how quickly even the "moderate" clerics are willing to go right back to pronouncing the anger of the Invisible Cloud Being on society for not hating gay people.

[General Zod]

Communism is a broken ethic system. Capitalism is a broken ethics system. Democracy is a broken ethics system. Socialism. The religions are by no means alone in this.

I'm not sure what you're using as your definition of an ethics system but the last I checked forms of governments and economies did not meet the criteria for one.

What do you mean by this? When Christianity moved away from the idea of penitential warfare and Inquisition, how did the sufferers of those facets of Christianity rise up and force change on them? Or, how did the Church itself collapse from the weight of empire? The Church still exists, in many forms, some are the freewheeling love-everybody-as-you-brother '70's type churches left over from the protest era. The Church that once sanctioned penitential warfare now disavows it; the Church that once sanctioned anti-Semitism has come out and disavowed it and apologized for doing
nothing and said that Jews are co-religionists, and the break-aways that refuse that message are considered extremist splinter groups-- not mainstream anymore.

Just as one example, look at the all racial hatred in the last 100 years in the US. You'd be hard pressed to point out any mainstream churches that would have been willing to change their viewpoints towards desegregation if it wasn't for the fact that it became a politically untenable position.

Don't get the idea that I'm saying that religion is all warm and fuzzy because I'm not. I'm quite well aware of the evils religion has caused, and can still cause, to this day. What I'm saying is that many mainstream religions today, at least in the West, have gone to a more tolerant and watered down version that would not actually tolerate a great deal of things that are writ in their own Bible. A modern priest/minister that truly advocated the stoning death of a child that used a swear word to his parents would not be embraced as a great social leader-- he'd more likely end up in a rubber room.

At the moment Islamic clerics tend to be filling that particular role quite nicely.

[Coyote]

Arguably, the "Golden Rule" of Communism is "from each according to their ability; to each according to their needs". That seems, in my opinion, to be a statement about ethics. Communism at its core is base don the "oppression of the workers" attaining "liberty" and "freedom from the money-hungry bosses". It may be a means of socio-economic thought, but it is designed from the ground up to be an emotional appeal to the workers' sense of right & wrong: the lack of ethics in an inherently exploitative environment.

Now, as far as hating gays, or racial exclusion, I've seen as many religious institutions that actively attack racism as promote it. Most churches and other institutions are still quite homophobic by nature, but there are some few that are abandoning that as well.

That churches did not change until it became politically untenable to maintain racial policies shows that churches are more interested in survival than in dogma. Religious institutions in the West recognise that their flocks or potential flocks don't believe in that stuff any more and so they adapt to reflect the changing face. But that is also a reflection of the society that the church as a whole serves. As racism went from "a proven scientific fact" that blacks were inferior to whites, and became regarded as downright bullshit, the church had to change or be left behind.

Bear in mind, I continue to focus on the religious institutions that have, indeed, proven to be "moderate" or "liberal'. The examples of Islamic clerics advoctaing child-stoning and clerics who call themselves moderate but still advocate homophobia are outside that purview (and any excuses). I'm talking about the truly non-judgemental factions that seem to be the point of topic in the OP. Overall, Western interpretations of religion have calmed significantly compared to where they were, and this calming has also reflected a general attitude in Western culture that has also turned away from imperialism and colonialism as acceptable institutions.

A lot of our present governments and societies "derive their authority from outdated texts" (Constitution, Magna Carta, etc) that held concepts that were at the time radical and liberal but in retrospect are full of crazy talk --because our point of reference has changed considerably. Now, the idea of limiting voting power to land-owning white men seems ludicrous, but at the time it was revolutionary and downright dangerous. And, oddly enough, it was the religions-- the Quakers in particular-- that were the advocates of going the extra step and admitting blacks to the halls of equality.

What the religions are finding out is that, like a giant game of Jamba, they have to remove certain pillars that have become unpopular in order to survive. And when they remove those pillars they find, surprise, that their institutions morph but do not collapse. The religions that are indisputably based on hatred become increasingly sidelined. Those that can adapt to th enew reality find that concepts they once thought were vital turned out to be utterly illusory.

[Darth Wong]

Arguably, the "Golden Rule" of Communism is "from each according to their ability; to each according to their needs". That seems, in my opinion, to be a statement about ethics.

Oh for fuck's sake, there are statements about ethics in the American legal system too; it doesn't mean that the American legal system is an ethical system. Communism, capitalism, and socialism are political systems, not ethical systems. An example of an ethical system would be humanism, or utilitarianism.

Now, as far as hating gays, or racial exclusion, I've seen as many religious institutions that actively attack racism as promote it. Most churches and other institutions are still quite homophobic by nature, but there are some few that are abandoning that as well.

If they abandon it, the impetus to do so will come from secular society, not from religion itself. The impetus for positive change in religious attitudes has always come from liberalization, not from the religion itself. This can be demonstrated by looking at the geographical areas which led the way: areas with better education, more urbanization, more secular outlooks, etc. So why credit religion for these improvements?

Consider this exercise: every excuse you make for religion can be applied to government bureaucracy. There are good people and bad people in government bureaucracy. Government bureaucracy does good things and bad things. But if anyone said that government bureaucracy was a source of morality, you'd laugh your ass off at him, and rightfully so.

That churches did not change until it became politically untenable to maintain racial policies shows that churches are more interested in survival than in dogma.

So once again, why credit the churches when you recognize the real source of these changes to be outside pressure? Do you credit drunk drivers with improving society because they stop when someone else takes away their licenses?