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

[General Zod]

>snip<

If you have to keep adapting and updating your holy book to stay up with the times, then frankly you'd have an easier time adopting a brand new ethical system. Especially if so many of the commandments and sins are so outmoded that they're either no longer practical to uphold or they have no relevance in society today except as some anachronistic throwback. If the book itself is never changed in any significant fashion, just reinterpreted, then that makes it worse when many of the commandments are obviously hateful and there's several contradictions that make it difficult to keep track of what's really being said in some instances.

[Darth Wong]

When your engine block develops a huge crack, you don't keep trying to patch it up. You get a new engine.

That's the problem with the Abrahamic religions; at the end of the day they're engines built on a 2000 year old engine block, and hooo boy is it in bad shape.

[Ritterin Sophia]

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.

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

That's Jesus on the Old Testament, it's still applicable.

Also NT

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Darth Wong]

Does that make the good parts of the Bible irrelevant?

It makes them non-authoritative. Scripture-based religion requires that you invest a certain moral or factual authority in its teachings. Call it "trust", call it "faith", call it "obedience", call it whatever you want. At the end of the day, any Scripture-based religion is based at least partly on the simple dictum of "it's true because we say so".

So when you show that someone is full of shit by pointing out all kinds of stupid and/or horrible things he's said, it destroys that authority. Without the authority, the Bible has no more intrinsic value than some drunk guy ranting on the subway. Maybe the drunk guy has something good to say in the midst of his incoherent ramblings; it doesn't matter because you probably won't pay much attention to him, since you do not trust his opinion to be worth anything. Why should we pay much attention to the Bible?

Logical arguments stand or fall on their quality. Religious ones stand or fall on the authority that people believe the Almighty invested in their anointed prophets. Take away that authority, and religion collapses to nothing. A collection of childish stories, hideous barbarism, and laughable ignorance.

[Patrick Degan]

To underline the point, as Einstein observed on one occasion, you're either a childish or shitty person if your morality depends upon the fear of punishment or promise of reward from an Invisible Cloud Being as its support.

[Astarial]

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.

Mathew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

That's Jesus on the Old Testament, it's still applicable.

Also NT

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

One of the major differences of Christianity from Judaism is that it was not taught as a religion that only Jews could convert to. Christianity was open to the practicing Jews, of course, but also to anybody else that could be found. They did not have to conform to the old laws, as long as they accepted Jesus as Christ.

One of the reasons that the early Christians were so persecuted is that they were not teaching Jewish law, and that pissed off the Jewish leaders of the time, as well as the general population. Paul and the rest were teaching that Jewish ritual was irrelevant and were attempting, in fact, to replace Judaism entirely.

There's a big early Christian theological debate on circumcision, which is extrapolated to the rest of Jewish law, but IIRC the premise is that if you are circumcised of the body but not of the mind, you are not righteous, but if you are pure of mind but uncircumcised, you are still pleasing to god. Right-thought is more important than right-action. It's more important to accept Jesus than to keep kosher.

Just from Acts:

Acts 10:27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with Gentiles or visit them. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Acts 11:1 The apostles and the believers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, "You went into the house of the uncircumcised and ate with them." 4 Starting from the beginning, Peter told them the whole story: 5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6 I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles and birds. 7 Then I heard a voice telling me, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 8 "I replied, 'Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.' 9 "The voice spoke from heaven a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.' 10 This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.

Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with [a] water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way?" 18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life."

Acts 13:38 "Therefore, my brothers and sisters, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

Acts 15:1 Certain individuals came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Acts 18:12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. 13 "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."

Acts 28:28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

[Hugh]

Wow. What a hail of posts since last evening. There are too many points to address them individually. I'll just try and draw a few conclusions.

I admit that the Bible is full of contradictions and that makes it a poor source of ethics when taken on the whole.

I admit that Christianity had to change with the times. But as see this as religious people being able to use their good judgment, rather than a sign of obsolescence.

I cannot agree that "religion is all evil, har har", because I know several deeply religious people who are very good people. If that makes them hypocritical, well, let that be their biggest fault.

There is one point I'd like to address specifically:

Christianity equates thinking about committing a sin to be as bad as actually committing one.

I had forgotten about it... I'm afraid it's true. Even the most enlightened Christians I've met uphold this view. It's quite upsetting if you think about it, but then again, the same people are the first to admit that they themselves are not free of sin. So that's fine with me.

One thing I will not do is go to an extreme. No offense.

[General Zod]

I cannot agree that "religion is all evil, har har", because I know several deeply religious people who are very good people. If that makes them hypocritical, well, let that be their biggest fault.

Do you even have any actual quotes of someone saying that "all religion is evil"? You seem stuck on this ridiculous strawman.

[Stark]

Religious people being good is basically totally irrelevant to this discussion.

[K. A. Pital]

Nobody said religion is all evil. We merely said that secular ethics are superior to religion and provided a logical explanation why.

Hugh, you're knocking a strawman.

[Hugh]

Religious people being good is basically totally irrelevant to this discussion.

How so? The whole discussion revolved around religion being bad because it teaches people to be intolerant, homicidal and so on.

[Lusankya]

Religious people being good is basically totally irrelevant to this discussion.

How so? The whole discussion revolved around religion being bad because it teaches people to be intolerant, homicidal and so on.

Because using religious people being good as proof that religion is a positive force in society is like using your aunt who smoked a pack of camels a day and still lived to be 104 as proof that smoking doesn't give you lung cancer.

Religion may not make people intolerant, but it increased the likelihood that they will be.

[Darth Wong]

Religious people being good is basically totally irrelevant to this discussion.

How so? The whole discussion revolved around religion being bad because it teaches people to be intolerant, homicidal and so on.

So your thinking is that an ideology cannot possibly be harmful if any of the people who have been exposed to it turn out OK? It has to be 100% effective in making people evil, or it must not be a bad ideology?

[Hugh]

Because using religious people being good as proof that religion is a positive force in society is like using your aunt who smoked a pack of camels a day and still lived to be 104 as proof that smoking doesn't give you lung cancer.

Fair enough. But it does prove that smoking doesn't necessarily give you lung cancer. I'd say that does make it relevant to the discussion.

[Stark]

So you snip the last sentence, and then pretend it doesn't exist? Fuck off, idiot: she already address that the issue is that cigarettes increase the chance of developing cancer, and religion likewise increases the chance of all manner of personal problems.

But I bet you'll just say it's all okay because you know a christian who gives money to the poor. When the bible expressly advocates terrible things, it's pretty bold to say that a religion based on it doesn't provide any support for those ideas whatsoever.

PS, feel free to totally misrepresent this post and knock down a strawman to make yourself feel better.

[Hugh]

So you snip the last sentence, and then pretend it doesn't exist?

Here it is, I was just trying to reduce on quotations:

Religion may not make people intolerant, but it increased the likelihood that they will be.

Fuck off, idiot: she already address that the issue is that cigarettes increase the chance of developing cancer, and religion likewise increases the chance of all manner of personal problems.

But unlike smoking, religion has some good parts, too. And here's the difference between us: you choose to ignore the latter.

But I bet you'll just say it's all okay because you know a christian who gives money to the poor. When the bible expressly advocates terrible things, it's pretty bold to say that a religion based on it doesn't provide any support for those ideas whatsoever.

When did I claimed that it's all OK? I'll say it again: there are bad things in the Bible, too, but they are at least somewhat offset by the good things. I even conceded that the sum total is negative. But the full half of the glass is still there, and that's the half I choose to care about.

PS, feel free to totally misrepresent this post and knock down a strawman to make yourself feel better.

If everything I wrote is still irrelevant to this whole discussion, I have no choice but to concede. I exhausted my arguments.

[Lusankya]

So you snip the last sentence, and then pretend it doesn't exist?

Here it is, I was just trying to reduce on quotations:

Religion may not make people intolerant, but it increased the likelihood that they will be.

Fuck off, idiot: she already address that the issue is that cigarettes increase the chance of developing cancer, and religion likewise increases the chance of all manner of personal problems.

But unlike smoking, religion has some good parts, too. And here's the difference between us: you choose to ignore the latter.

Actually, smoking may improve your memory and decrease the risk of you contracting alzheimers, amongst other things. Of course, it also increases your risk of stroke, heart failure and lung cancer, but hey, who cares, right? It has some benefits, so it must be good.

When did I claimed that it's all OK? I'll say it again: there are bad things in the Bible, too, but they are at least somewhat offset by the good things. I even conceded that the sum total is negative. But the full half of the glass is still there, and that's the half I choose to care about.

Actually, the half would only be half full if the benefits (let's say that it's tea, because I like to drink tea) and the negatives (non-full section of the glass) were equal. As it is, considering that most of the benefits of religion can be produced by other things, I'd suggest that the only thing left in the glass is the icky bitter bits that you don't actually want to drink.

[Hugh]

Actually, smoking may improve your memory and decrease the risk of you contracting alzheimers, amongst other things. Of course, it also increases your risk of stroke, heart failure and lung cancer, but hey, who cares, right? It has some benefits, so it must be good.

Unfortunately, you can't choose which of the effects will apply to you.

Actually, the half would only be half full if the benefits (let's say that it's tea, because I like to drink tea) and the negatives (non-full section of the glass) were equal.

Nitpicking. I said "half" to maintain the metaphor. The exact amount is difficult to quantify.

As it is, considering that most of the benefits of religion can be produced by other things, I'd suggest that the only thing left in the glass is the icky bitter bits that you don't actually want to drink.

If that's all you see in there, by all means, feel free to steer away from it.

[Lusankya]

Actually, smoking may improve your memory and decrease the risk of you contracting alzheimers, amongst other things. Of course, it also increases your risk of stroke, heart failure and lung cancer, but hey, who cares, right? It has some benefits, so it must be good.

Unfortunately, you can't choose which of the effects will apply to you.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I'll assume you mean "you can't separate the good and the bad stuff from smoking, but you can separate the good and the bad stuff from religion". I'll be certain to pass this message on to the people who died in 9/11 when I see them next. I'm certain they'll be quite pleased to hear that they had a choice in which parts of religion applied to them.

Actually, the half would only be half full if the benefits (let's say that it's tea, because I like to drink tea) and the negatives (non-full section of the glass) were equal.

Nitpicking. I said "half" to maintain the metaphor. The exact amount is difficult to quantify.

And my point was that your metaphor is shit.

As it is, considering that most of the benefits of religion can be produced by other things, I'd suggest that the only thing left in the glass is the icky bitter bits that you don't actually want to drink.

If that's all you see in there, by all means, feel free to steer away from it.

And how about when it steers into me? Why should I be forced to live under someone else's outdated ethical system (ie, their religion) which says that gays can't marry and that I'm not allowed to get an abortion? And why should children be forced to be subject to their parents' outdated ethical system (religion) which states that their genitals should be mutilated or that something as natural and harmless as masturbation is immoral? Perhaps you could explain to me why children should be taught to believe that it is wrong to question their ethical system (religion) so that they may understand the reason why actions are moral or immoral?

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, yeah. Whatever positive there is about religion, it's all drowning in one bad thing - that being ... "We must pluck out the eyes of reason", to quote Luther. The utter hatred of reason and rationality, defiance of logic.

To say that religion is not harmful because it has worthwhile members is simply a non-sequitur (personally I always say that a decent person is always a decent person, but only through religion a decent person can commit bad acts with a clear conscience).

[Hugh]

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I'll assume you mean "you can't separate the good and the bad stuff from smoking, but you can separate the good and the bad stuff from religion".

Duh.

I'll be certain to pass this message on to the people who died in 9/11 when I see them next. I'm certain they'll be quite pleased to hear that they had a choice in which parts of religion applied to them.

And your point is, because some crazy fuckers decide to obey their particular religion to the point of mass-murder (if, indeed, religion was their primary motivation, which I doubt), we should slam all religion, everywhere? As opposed to, you know, punishing the actual culprits for what they actually did? Oh wait, they died too. Now you need some scapegoats, right? Great ethics there, pal.

If that's all you see in there, by all means, feel free to steer away from it.

And how about when it steers into me?

That's an issue. But religion doesn't steer into you all by itself. Blame the people.

[Plekhanov]

That's an issue. But religion doesn't steer into you all by itself. Blame the people.

If the religion in question specifically tells people to impose their beliefs upon others (as the bible tells believers to) then shouldn't we also blame the religion?

[Hugh]

Yeah, yeah. Whatever positive there is about religion, it's all drowning in one bad thing - that being ... "We must pluck out the eyes of reason", to quote Luther. The utter hatred of reason and rationality, defiance of logic.

So now Luther's words define religion in general? Oh wait, he was condemned for his views. By the Pope, no less. And the protestants were persecuted for centuries. Then again, one could argue that it was all a political issue, and religion was just a justification.

To say that religion is not harmful because it has worthwhile members is simply a non-sequitur

Then so is saying that religion is harmful because it counts some nitwits among its ranks.

(personally I always say that a decent person is always a decent person, but only through religion a decent person can commit bad acts with a clear conscience).

If you stop before the "but", I'll concede the point.

[Hugh]

That's an issue. But religion doesn't steer into you all by itself. Blame the people.

If the religion in question specifically tells people to impose their beliefs upon others (as the bible tells believers to) then shouldn't we also blame the religion?

"Also" is the keyword here. Yeah, maybe we should. But then again, when a murder is committed, do you also blame the weapon, or just the murderer?

[Kojiro]

"Also" is the keyword here. Yeah, maybe we should. But then again, when a murder is committed, do you also blame the weapon, or just the murderer?

When someone goes on a rampage with a gun I consider it a pretty good reason to get rid of guns, even if they're just facilitators of the evil.