I have said yes to give a lecture about Religion: The Bible

[Kadagar_AV]

Plenty of 'Jedi' followers running around. So just extrapolating how we love to embrace ideas of fact and fiction.

The Bible is a win-win for humans.
A). It is real and we have a loving God
B). It is a work of fiction showing our greatest aspirations in selecting these stories. Quite a compliment at some levels.

I admire humans, we are deeply flaweutilityut we strive for better lives for ourselves, families and societies.

It would be a true shame on the human race if our greatest aspirations would be to think it's ok to treat people like, you know, people are treated in the bible.

*shivers*

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It would be a true shame on the human race if our greatest aspirations would be to think it's ok to treat people like, you know, people are treated in the bible.

*shivers*

That depends - if your model is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that's a very different book to David in Kings.

[Whacker]

Tuff said something about needing to believe in some kind of "transcendent purpose in life" to be a moral person, which I pretty much agree with.

I guess I don't get the antagonism.

Why does life need to have some specific or higher purpose? Why do people (you?) feel the need to justify their existences or claim some higher purpose? Do you honestly believe that after you die there is some form of afterlife?

The antagonism comes from being told that one is an immoral person because they don't believe in the other person's respective religions or belief structures, or refuse to accept legislated morality.

My take has always been to level the playing field, then people can live how they choose within the boundaries of the law. I think most all of us can agree murder is bad and counterproductive to civilization's progress, so that's clear cut. Drugs? I could care less what others do with or put in their bodies, it's their decision. Obviously things like drunk or stoned driving affect others, so that's out. Extramarital sex? Again, personal choice. It's not for someone else to dictate. Abortion? Easy. Don't like it, don't do it. But don't tell others what they can do with their own bodies. The concept of marriage? The term comes from an old latin root, and ironically the pre-christian Roman empire allowed for homosexual marriages. So it's been hijacked by christianity. Don't like homosexual marriage? Fine, don't do it. Don't associate with gay people. Don't like polygamy? Same thing really. Working out the family law around polygamy or polyandry would be damn hard, but if that's what people willingly want to do, then so be it. Right to self determination, such as the right to die? Your own body. If you want some assistance having a clean, painless death, pending validation of one's sanity and mental firmness, then why not? Don't like it? Easy, don't DO it. Clearly people cannot go around murdering, stealing, being abusive, or other plainly counterproductive or aggressive actions that civilizations near unanimously reject. But what people do in their own homes or with their own bodies provided it does not impact others negatively is up to them. "Impact others negatively" means health and safety, not offend. There are tons of things that go on which I find offensive, and learning to deal with them as a member of society is something I had to learn. Seems quite a few others around here never reached that point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

pre-christian Roman empire allowed for homosexual marriages

Uh, not in Roman law it didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

Juvanal says such marriages were not legal, just for show.

You want to be angry atheist?

Fine, but by God be an accurate one!

[Kadagar_AV]

That depends - if your model is Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, that's a very different book to David in Kings.

You know, way better than me, that there are parts of the Bible that would be despicable by the moral standards of today, no?

So to be a "good" christian you will have to cherry-pick to have morals that is competable (sp?) with todays standards of morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know, way better than me, that there are parts of the Bible that would be despicable by the moral standards of today, no?

So to be a "good" christian you will have to cherry-pick to have morals that is competable (sp?) with todays standards of morality.

Well, it depends on how you see the Bible.

If you see the Bible as a divinely inspired whole with an overarching structure which is meant to teach morality, and you're looking for God in every word you'll struggle.

But I don't see it like that - it's silly.

Even if the Bible was written on gold tablets bound with silver wire enscribed by Metatron himself, I'd still misinterpret it as soon as I read it, and even if I read it correctly I would not express it properly the first time I related it.

In that context the idea that the Bible is directly written by God is silly, maybe "God breathed" in the sense that he first spoke it, but even then it was only written by human hands.

In other words, the issue of authorship is not worth worrying about so much as the message.

As far as the message goes, if you read the books of the Bible the one thing you cannot fail to take away from it is that all God's chosen prophets fail him in some regard. Even his Angels, his children of light and not flesh, are not constant; his most beloved Angel becomes his most implaccable enemy.

Then - you have Christ, who is God and who preaches forgiveness.

[ICantSpellDawg]

He thinks that only religious people can truly have a moral consciousness; that for atheists there is actually no compelling reason to act morally at all but that they delude themselves with "fake humanist ethics". Not a nice thing to say about other people, obviously. And the Catholic Church, which he attends, disagrees with him on this point as well. I thought it was worth pointing that out, especially because the person in question routinely refers to his own religion in other debates.

The Catholic Church believes in Natural Law, God's law which is imbued in the hearts of everyone. You can have no organized Religion and still do the right thing because it is naturally in you to do so. This implies that the Church is right about that specific point, if they are not right, then their natural law is not imbued into man and my point stands. I'm making generic arguments, not talking about strict Catholic theology, I'm not a theologian.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not an anti religion argument - it's an anti-Tuff's interpretationa argument.

I.e. he claims to be a Roman Catholic but he doesn't believe the things Roman Catholics, or many other Christians, believe about people.

Tuff would say, "you can't be moral without God" and he means that if you don't believe in God you're not moral and no different to any other animal.

I say, "you can't have morality without God" but what I mean is that if there were not God then there would be no morality, but I do believe in a God which is where all morality flows from.

Even yous, Sasaki.

I believe that too, but if it is not true, then what? My point is that I believe that many things are possible, some which contradict the others. Your point is that there is a God and his law is written into the hearts of men. I agree, but were that not to be true, which others argue (or don't realize that they are arguing), then there would need to be an alternative understanding of morality or our understanding of what we consider morality, right? The Church understands that people are able to reason and encourages them to do so. I've come to a point where I can believe things more strongly as I come to understand other things which may contradict my beliefs. I try not to take things on face value until I have vetted them in my own way.

BTW, I did put a caveat in the beginning of my post "absent my moral universality...", now that I've re-read it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe that too, but if it is not true, then what? My point is that I believe that many things are possible, some which contradict the others. Your point is that there is a God and his law is written into the hearts of men. I agree, but were that not to be true, which others argue (or don't realize that they are arguing), then there would need to be an alternative understanding of morality or our understanding of what we consider morality, right? The Church understands that people are able to reason and encourages them to do so. I've come to a point where I can believe things more strongly as I come to understand other things which may contradict my beliefs. I try not to take things on face value until I have vetted them in my own way.

BTW, I did put a caveat in the beginning of my post "absent my moral universality...", now that I've re-read it.

If it's not true, then there is no God, then there can be no "morality" as it is traditionally understood because there is not arbiter.

In which case, it doesn't matter that there is no God, unless it makes you sad.

I think that you should take more care in the way you express yourself, quite a lot more care in some cases.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If it's not true, then there is no God, then there can be no "morality" as it is traditionally understood because there is not arbiter.

You've just made my point for me.

I don't have to take care in the way I express myself except to keep to the rules of the board.

[HopAlongBunny]

Assign a follow-up exercise:

reconcile just about anything in the Old Testament with the parable of "The Good Samaritan"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't have to take care in the way I express myself except to keep to the rules of the board.

No, but you should because needlessly offending people is a bad thing.

In Roman terms I would say that you are guilty of Vanity because you believe you have the right to express your views however you so choose and it is up to others to correctly interpret your utterences, if they have the werewithal.

Although, I could also interpret your remark so that you are guilty of Pride because you believe the rules of common courtesy do not apply to you.

You are also potentailly guilty of heresy against the Roman doctrine of Natural Law in implying that the board's rules do not reflect God's Divine Law and are purely human constructs despite their being devised witha Good will by the moderators and Admins, some of whom have been Roman Catholics.

In Protestant terms - you are making a point of being a tool for the sake of it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since the Old Testament is being bashed a lot here, I will just say this.

I love the Old Testament because of the whole narrative surrounding it. God chooses a lowly desert people to be his above any other people on earth. When they are enslaved by the superpower of their time, he sets them free and brings them to the promised land. Against all the odds they drive out the evil inhabitants to finally have their own homeland. And all the while God watches over them. He punishes Israel when they sin, he even delivers them into captivity... but he never abandons them and there is always the promise of Zion.

I think the whole narrative of God's relationship with Israel is symbolic of the one he has with every individual, and that is one of the big themes, possibly the big theme of the Old Testament.

Then again I am a pretty dysfunctional individual (to put it mildly), so I guess that is why the Old Testament seems so real to me, especially concerning my relationship with God.

Modern mainstream Christianity just seems too nice and easy. I don't get what it is about, I just dont think they have the same experience I have had.

[Whacker]

Since the Old Testament is being bashed a lot here, I will just say this.

I love the Old Testament because of the whole narrative surrounding it. God chooses a lowly desert people to be his above any other people on earth. When they are enslaved by the superpower of their time, he sets them free and brings them to the promised land. Against all the odds they drive out the evil inhabitants to finally have their own homeland. And all the while God watches over them. He punishes Israel when they sin, he even delivers them into captivity... but he never abandons them and there is always the promise of Zion.

I think the whole narrative of God's relationship with Israel is symbolic of the one he has with every individual, and that is one of the big themes, possibly the big theme of the Old Testament.

Then again I am a pretty dysfunctional individual (to put it mildly), so I guess that is why the Old Testament seems so real to me, especially concerning my relationship with God.

Modern mainstream Christianity just seems too nice and easy. I don't get what it is about, I just dont think they have the same experience I have had.

For the record, I also love the old testament. Fire and brimstone, and there's a certain rawness and purity that even having been translated, translated again, and again and again, it still speaks to us through the ages. There are certainly some shreds of historical accuracy here and there, but for the most part it's a collective people's memory with a huge amount of bias and inaccuracy, along with a heap of pirated lore. I do think that for a bunch of half-savage nomadic goat herders, it's pretty entertaining.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, but you should because needlessly offending people is a bad thing.

In Roman terms I would say that you are guilty of Vanity because you believe you have the right to express your views however you so choose and it is up to others to correctly interpret your utterences, if they have the werewithal.

Although, I could also interpret your remark so that you are guilty of Pride because you believe the rules of common courtesy do not apply to you.

You are also potentailly guilty of heresy against the Roman doctrine of Natural Law in implying that the board's rules do not reflect God's Divine Law and are purely human constructs despite their being devised witha Good will by the moderators and Admins, some of whom have been Roman Catholics.

In Protestant terms - you are making a point of being a tool for the sake of it.

Thou shalt not be discourteous? I'm not really understanding the point or origin of your criticisms in this particular thread. The church is nowhere near as dogmatic as you have constructed it to be. It houses sinners and sinners think and do what they'd like and correct the things that they believe harm them or their relationship with God and his Church. Thinking/discussing philosophy and being kind of a jerk have never been impediments to being a Catholic in my experience. 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are Catholics, and they are not discussing canon on a daily basis, and they surely are not always civil.

We recognize allegory in the Bible, we can recognize fallibility in most the church teaching if it is proven to us, but it has to be proven, it can't just be convenient to modern sensibilities, it must fly in the face of reason, tradition and natural law in a big way. I make an effort to recognize ex-cathedra teachings as a matter of faith and not to question them, but new ones are rarely made.

I reserve the right to be a frustrating jerk.

[Papewaio]

Meh you have your beliefs, are genuine and will debate fairly.

If that is being a jerk, I'm happy to try and live up to that standard... One day I might even get here.

[Vladimir]

I believe Pape's point was satiritcal - that in 2,000 years nobody will realise LotR was a work of fiction.

Don't care. Just wanted to wax historical about LoTR.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thou shalt not be discourteous? I'm not really understanding the point or origin of your criticisms in this particular thread. The church is nowhere near as dogmatic as you have constructed it to be. It houses sinners and sinners think and do what they'd like and correct the things that they believe harm them or their relationship with God and his Church. Thinking/discussing philosophy and being kind of a jerk have never been impediments to being a Catholic in my experience. 6 of the 9 supreme court justices are Catholics, and they are not discussing canon on a daily basis, and they surely are not always civil.

We recognize allegory in the Bible, we can recognize fallibility in most the church teaching if it is proven to us, but it has to be proven, it can't just be convenient to modern sensibilities, it must fly in the face of reason, tradition and natural law in a big way. I make an effort to recognize ex-cathedra teachings as a matter of faith and not to question them, but new ones are rarely made.

I reserve the right to be a frustrating jerk.

I believe that it behoves us to make pains to be understood - you just scattershot ideas and thoughts without any concern for other's feelings or sensebilities.

Despite harming your argument, it is also needlessly rude.

My last word on the matter - take it or leave it.

[Kralizec]

The Catholic Church believes in Natural Law, God's law which is imbued in the hearts of everyone. You can have no organized Religion and still do the right thing because it is naturally in you to do so. This implies that the Church is right about that specific point, if they are not right, then their natural law is not imbued into man and my point stands. I'm making generic arguments, not talking about strict Catholic theology, I'm not a theologian.

The bolded part I agree with. I think that humans have an inherent conscience, regardless of wether they're religious - but I think that it's a result of our evolution as a social species. Apparently your position is that you only assume people have a conscience because your religion tells you that God gave it to them, but otherwise it can't exist. And it contradicts your post where you said "I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life"

[ICantSpellDawg]

Conscience absent a superlative right and wrong is just evolutionary culture. It is meaningless for me personally to obey the imperatives given to me by biology when I don't have to and there is no judgement standard. We are not slaves to our biology and history, we choose to betray these things when the situation benefits us. Without judgement (temporal or metaphysical), I am not worried about committing fraud, killing unjustly, etc. I will simply do it if I can benefit from it. I don't care, as a thinking human being, if society doesn't want me to do it because I don't care about society. There is no real reason, absent punishment/consequence to not do terrible things if you feel like doing them by this secular standard, but there is a reason not to do these things if you believe that there is an inescapable punishment waiting for you if you destroy these basic laws.

My point was that the Catholic Church believes that there is a truth and God whether you believe in it or not. A "way" that we all know, whether you choose to follow it or not. You seem to be saying that people can still do the "right" thing, absent truth and a judgement standard, but I disagree that there would be a "right" thing to do. A biological imperitive thing to do, but who really cares about that, we bypass it all day long and evolve new biological imperatives. I like to think of my point from "a stopped clock is right twice a day" perspective. (except, of course military clocks, which are obviously less ethical than others and are only right once a day)

It was built to tell time and is right sometimes even when it no longer functions correctly.

[Kralizec]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least) so wether you'd go on an selfish ego-trip, unjustly enriching yourself while trampling on others...we don't know. I do find it interesting that you claim that you, personally, only act morally because God told you to, even though I don't believe it.

Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least)

I've been an strong agnostic for most of my life, except for the past 5 or 6 years. At various points in time I've dabbled in faith.

Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

Why not? I think that sociopaths are just people who intrinsically get what I am talking about. A sociopath is not necessarily someone who seeks to harm others actively or kill them, those are just the ones that we hear about in the news and fear.

They simply disregard society and it's mores (for the most part). They would have varied compulsions, just like the rest of us. Some moral people are driven to kill, steal, give to charity, eat, etc but respect society and guard society's view of them or their interests. Being a natural or congenital sociopath just makes it easier to do what I am talking about here, but the human mind could simply come to these conclusions. You could still appear normal and fit into society at large.

Also, your understanding of "conscience" would need to be rather rigid or dogmatically constructed to believe that it mattered much, more like a philosophical appendix than a reason to do or not to do things.

If you value conscience, value religion. I suspect that both are human evolutionary products for the preservation of natual, God given law. One is biological, the other sociological, but both are technologies that do very similar things. My belief that Religion is "man-made" and developed should not be construed as a belief that man created the idea of "God" or that these things were not a gift from God. I don't believe that this opinion is far off of the Catholic church's recognition that tradition and Sacraments are a very important part of our faith, but I could be wildly wrong. I don't disbelieve in the tenants of my faith or the assertions, but much of the ritual is there to help strengthen our moral resolve. It's not just for God, it's for us as well. The ritual has a spiritual presence - our understanding and interpretation of "the way" with the Benediction of God. It's a give and take. I believe that biological and sociological evolution are as much a part of God's creation as your soul, so this shouldn't be too radical a thought, but all it is is a thought.

[ICantSpellDawg]

double post

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You've never been an atheist (I assume so at least) so wether you'd go on an selfish ego-trip, unjustly enriching yourself while trampling on others...we don't know. I do find it interesting that you claim that you, personally, only act morally because God told you to, even though I don't believe it.

Your idea of consistently being able to ignore your own conscience is absurd. You can't become a sociopath by choice.

Ah, but are you a proper Atheist.

ICSD appears to be describing moral apathy, absent threat of sanction he does not feel compelled to act in a way as proscribed by "morality".

You, on the other hand, follow the dictates of your concience - which you justify as an evolutionary advantage. The interesting thing about this is that ICSD is following a utilitarian philosophical model whilst you are responding to the moral issue on an intuitive level and then applying a utilitarian justification.

Or, to put it another way, you sould like a man of faith and he sounds like an atheist.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see why you necessarily need some sort of logical origin or arbiter for morals to come from in order to act morally.

I don't like justifying intuition as an evolution thing.

We have intuition and it's a nice thing to have. We use it and it seems to work. Sasaki if I recall once said that intuition and logic are both tools not ends in themselves. Thus I think that intuition doesn't need to be logically justified because it is a different tool than logic. If people's intuition clashes, we can rely on logic from that point to see which makes more sense. I think this is how most people operate anyway without thinking about it and it seems to work for the most part.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see why you necessarily need some sort of logical origin or arbiter for morals to come from in order to act morally.

OK - this is actually quite interesting (I think) so I want to try and explain.

I should start by saying that "The Arbiter" is one of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.

the argument runs like this:

Moral systems assume there is a difference between right and wrong, and that this difference is absolute, black and white.

In order for a moral truth to be real it must be universally applicable, i.e. killing is always wrong, in all cases, at all times.

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

If you aren't talking about absolute right and wrong then personnal preference has intruded into the system and then you are merely talking about "preferable".

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".

[Kadagar_AV]

OK - this is actually quite interesting (I think) so I want to try and explain.

I should start by saying that "The Arbiter" is one of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.

the argument runs like this:

Moral systems assume there is a difference between right and wrong, and that this difference is absolute, black and white.

In order for a moral truth to be real it must be universally applicable, i.e. killing is always wrong, in all cases, at all times.

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

If you aren't talking about absolute right and wrong then personnal preference has intruded into the system and then you are merely talking about "preferable".

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".

To put it bluntly back at ya, maybe YOU have to believe in some higher power to believe in right or wrong as actual things. And by the way, how can "right and wrong" be "things"?

To rape an infant to death is for me wrong, it is a clear "black and white" case where no one can ever convince me that there were reasons excusing the action. I have reached that conclusion from my intuitive gut feeling, as well as from a logical stand point. "God" has nothing to do with that what so ever.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

This is where the argument breaks apart. Why does there need to be infallibility? Just because there is a good and evil doesn't mean that it has to be constructed with infallibility.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

Only if you think that good and evil needs infallibility, which it doesn't.

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".

No, i will continue to believe in right and wrong without god, because we can collectively find our way towards what is right and wrong without him and people have been doing just that for many years.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To put it bluntly back at ya, maybe YOU have to believe in some higher power to believe in right or wrong as actual things. And by the way, how can "right and wrong" be "things"?

I believe in right and wrong - hence I believe in God. Philosophically speaking, I consider the moral imperative evidence of the Divine.

To rape an infant to death is for me wrong, it is a clear "black and white" case where no one can ever convince me that there were reasons excusing the action. I have reached that conclusion from my intuitive gut feeling, as well as from a logical stand point. "God" has nothing to do with that what so ever.

I reached that conclusionintuitively and no logical argument would convince me otherwise. You contradicted yourself, you said it was logical, but you'd never be convinced my an argument.

Something stronger than your rational mind drives you to that conclusion - then you go back and provide a rational justification.

This is where the argument breaks apart. Why does there need to be infallibility? Just because there is a good and evil doesn't mean that it has to be constructed with infallibility.

Only if you think that good and evil needs infallibility, which it doesn't.

No, i will continue to believe in right and wrong without god, because we can collectively find our way towards what is right and wrong without him and people have been doing just that for many years.

You are confusing morality with "utilitarianism". Morality just "is", utilitarianism is the thing you try to work out where we try to agree together what we believe is right.

That's not the same as absolute morality.

In answer to your question, it must be infallible because it must be true in all instances - ergo you require the Arbiter.

A moral statement looks like this: killing is wrong.

A Utilitarian statement looks like this: Killing is wrong unless it will save someone else's life.

They are not the same.

in the first case the moral principle in operation is that killing is wrong, but in the second case killing is only wrong because of another principle, greatest benefit. In the first case the statement is the core principle, in the latter case the statement reflects an interpretation of the principle. The fundamental difference is that in the former case "killing is wrong" is considered a moral primative, always true and written on the soul of the universe, in the latter case killing is only wrong because it violates the "most benefit" principle.

So, although the two systems (mostly) produce the same results they function differently on a mechanical level and they say different things about the universe. In a traditional moral system there is "right" and there is "wrong", two opposiing forces. In a utilitarian system there is only a balance judgment between the benefit and value of the actors involved. My problem with utilitarianism is that instead of defining laws for us to live by it asigns every action, and actor, a value in a ggreat judgemtn-equation where the sum must always be zero (balance) but never is. In a utilitarian system different people have different values at different times and in different situations, and I can never accept that.

For me, all people must have the same value at all times.

[Kadagar_AV]

I believe in right and wrong - hence I believe in God. Philosophically speaking, I consider the moral imperative evidence of the Divine.

Of course you consider it evidence. As you lack a scientific base you have to grasp at straws like this.

It could easily be explained with cultural memes, or even racial memes.

As easy as: "If everyone did it, the society would not work, so we can't do it". The bigger the negative impact on society, the bigger the aversion for the action.

I reached that conclusionintuitively and no logical argument would convince me otherwise. You contradicted yourself, you said it was logical, but you'd never be convinced my an argument.

Something stronger than your rational mind drives you to that conclusion - then you go back and provide a rational justification.

Fair point. Let me re-phrase: I can not see a possible defense for the action. But if someone had a logical defense, I would of course support it. But really, can you think of one?

So my rational mind is plenty enough, no need for God to whisper in my ear. And trust me, God and I are not on speaking terms after that Italian Catholic girl boarding school visited Austria anyway.