There were, however, a significant sect of early Christianity who still considered themselves early jews.
I can see how Gentile converts might have called themselves Jewish. Christianity did evolve from the Jewish faith. In fact Christ himself was largely considered a Jew. The early Christian church consisted of informal faith communities each containing converts from Jewish and pagan religions, and perhaps atheists and agnostics. Formal hierarchical organization of the Church didn't happen for quite some time. Therefore, I believe it would make the most sense simply to call them Jewish or Gentile Christians.
If not for the outrageous heresies of the Gnostics, I doubt that the early Church would have formed into anything stronger than the current Protestant central authority--or, at least, the contemporary Jewish authorities. (Oh, them and the Roman Empire...)
I don't believe Gnostic heretics presented much of problem until about 200 AD. I consider this to be close to point at which we can say the Church was fairly well established, though I admit this is my subjective opinion. IMHO, it was mainly the Holy Spirit working from persecutions brought about by Jewish authorities, Roman authorities, and perhaps antagonistic Gentiles that most aided the growth of the early Church.
FYI, in practice, there really is no Protestant central authority. Even within specific Protestant faiths there are often significant differences between individual churches. The largest and most unified Christian church is the Catholic Church.
Again, the Jewish church is not Christian. Jewish contemporary authorities still specifically reject Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, those who consider themselves a "Jew" would be Jewish, and a "Messianic Jew" would probably more appropriately be considered Christian.
He didn't say "Messianic Jew", he said "Jew". The Jewish faith officially rejects Christ as the Messiah. They believe that the Messiah has yet to come.
There are several branches of Christianity, but the Church as given to us by Christ is I believe well defined. The Jewish faith is also well defined. However, I don't believe that there are many branches of Judaism. Even if there were, I think accepting Christ as Messiah would represent a pretty drastic shift in their faith. Rejection of Christ as Messiah was what started the Church down these two separate paths.
In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics.
Not quite, there were Jews and Gentiles and Jewish and Gentile Christians. Gentiles were everyone not Jewish.
The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.")
Where did you get this idea? The Jews specifically rejected Jesus as the Messiah. This is still the case today.
...and the Gnostics--well, the gnostics are why the strong central church formed,
Not just the Gnostics, but all Jews and Gentiles who persected the church.
...and why the Inquisition was so harsh.
The Inquisition was employed against all heretics. In my opinion, it like the crusades is a blemish on the face of Christianity because of the essentially un-Christian methods employed.
Smoke of any kind (including second hand) can be detrimental not only to our health, but it causes damage to the environment and can be hard to fix. My grandparents smoke habitually and I get a sick feeling just by entering their house. They don't have to be smoking for this to happen.
Violent video games dont' cause violence.
Not directly, but there is evidence that they can lead to violence. As a formerly avid Quake fan, I know from experience how angry or frustrated the game could make me. Granted I was capable of handling these situations, but I was none the better off for them.
They give violent people new ideas.
OK, so is this something we should be promoting? Our culture today is doing a good job of demonstrating it's inability to accept personal responsibility. You can't force people to be responsible. However, government does have a responsibility to it's people to protect them from themselves. Sometimes that calls us to sacrifice.
They were going to be violent anyway.
Presumption. Fire does not always need kindle, but it sure starts easily with it. The fact of the matter is that some will always be selfish, irresponsible, and generally evil. However, in many cases people are just too mentally slow, impaired, retarded, or whatever to function well in society. In some cases, this is more obvious than in others, and often it is not the fault of those who are. So how do you deal with such problems?
If anythign it draws these loonies out so we can lock them up.
At what cost? What is ultimately to be gained? Should we make the monster, bait a trap, and throw it into a cage that we cannot hold it in? This is the system that we have today. Ultimately we are responsible, and will be accountable for what we do and what we create.
It should be a crime not to bring up your children properly.
We can't always rely on parents to bring their kids up properly. Even when they do, there are plenty of influences in the world to lead them into doing the wrong things. Our presently deficient culture is due in no small part to the corrupting influence of TV, Hollywood, politicians, etc, all who pander to our own selfish concerns. We make our beds and sleep in them. But we don't live in a vacuum. We make the beds of others too and we need to start thinking along these lines.
Now, I'm not claiming that a decision to not have an abortion causes all of these murders. In fact, I'm not even pointing out one single case where this has been determined to be true. This is totally irrelevant to my point though. The original assertion that I was addressing was that banning abortion provides the most good to the most people. In order to prove that point, you would need to demonstrate that it is false...
But you did try to refute it by asserting that they would be a drain on resources in an overcrowded world. And my point was that you were making predictions about the future state of society that might or might not occur. If I want to prove that banning abortion provides the most good to the most amount of people all I have to do is show that the person is likely to make a net contribution to society.
One doesn't have to be a Nobel prize winning scientist, the guy who collects our garbage serves good enough utilitarian purpose. Even criminals can be used productively.
However, even this approach misses the mark because there is much more to life than that which we assign to it. The ultimate judge of the value of any particular life is the person who lives it. People who start life up for adoption or live in a state funded institution normally have nowhere to go but up. Even so, it does not mean that they can't enjoy life. People should give God a chance.
I live in America. I have seen some people who are Christians who are very nice people. I have also seen the worst scum around hiding behind a claim of Christianity which seems to blind other Christians to their atrocities.
This is one of the reasons I continue to discuss things with you. You are at least rational enough to recognize that it is not religion itself that causes problems, but *people* who claim to be acting IAW their religion.
Have you seen the times where it doesn't? I suspect you don't really see these.
You're right I haven't.
Or rather, that you thank god for the good things that come about from it, yet absolutely forget to mention him when it fucks up lives, cultures, and the world. Of course, that's just free will.
You're assigning blame to God for things better assigned to the devil, or individuals themselves. Free will and life after death go a long way towards explaining why God allows evil to act in the world, but there are more reasons than these.
Not at all. Disliking Christianity isn't negative. It's self preservation based on the history of your religion. Your approach seems much more based in "unlikely realities". If you really can't see the dichotomy between thanking god for the good and ignoring his contributions to the bad, then that is living in unreality.
First, you are focusing only on the bad. However, the contributions far outweigh the harm done. Second, all religious and all secular institutions have 'bad' in their history. But what has been the cause, and what institutions have the best records? Third, I don't think I am unrealistic in my belief that it is people who love themselves and who love sin and not God that's the problem.
The original poster argued that every potential life will have a net positive affect. My point is that this isn't true.
My point is that it is your nature to see things mainly in the negative that gives you this perspective. Realize that negativism is degenerative and self-fulfilling. If you see something you don't like then do something about it, don't blame God. Get out and do something you like instead of watching that crap on TV, don't get caught up in unproductive speculative gossip. Go to church, find new friends, do anything to get you out of that situation.
It is letting people make their own decisions about the evolution of their own life.
Quite the opposite, it's making decisions about someone else's life presumptively.
Abortion is an extremely prejudicial act.
Again, not true. It is the mature, rational decision that this is not the time and place to bring a child into the world.
The time for that decision is before having sex. If someone isn't ready to have children, they shouldn't have sex. If they do anyway, they can give the child up, but they should never kill it.
Christianity and the Church are given to serve humanity.
Christianity itself might have the potential of doing good for humanity, but so many who claim to be christians are so much worse than non-religious people at walking the walk. The overwhelming prevalence of this is, of course, based solely on my own observations, so feel free to discount this point.
It's irrelevant. If someone tells a person not to steal and they steal anyway, it makes no sense to blame the person who told them not to. People who put their Christianity on display and then do bad things serve the devil, I don't care who they claim to be. Worse than non-religious people at walking the walk? The record proves otherwise. All I have to do is turn on the TV and I can see the immoral crap promoted and done by non religious sources. The churches effectively counter these influences.
The church though. You have got to be kidding me. The church exists for the sole purpose of expanding its own power structure. The church has nothing to do with christianity.
You must be talking about hollywood churches and TV evangelists. These are not "the church". The major churches are strictly non-profit organizations. That's probably one reason why we don't see them represented on network TV very much.
Yeah, I say let them go forth across the world and enslave torture and murder anybody they want to for just by claiming belief in me they are holy and all others are scum."
This *is* the history of the church.
These things blemish the church of the past, but they are not "the history of the church". I should point out that all governments and human institutions have these marks on their record. But considering how old, large, and resilient the church is, it is amazing how little can be said against it in comparison to other organizations.
In fact god has manifest himself throughout history by destroying the good and the evil completely blindly.
People do this, not God.
In fact, if you actually look around you today and look at history, if you believe in any sort of manifestation of god, he is quite squarely in favor of evil since evil is way ahead in the game in this world.
My perspective is different. That evil which does exist exists because people ignore God, not because of God.
Sure, it'll all be squared in the next. Whether this is true or not, I defy you to come up with a better system to keep oppressors in power.
The oppressors themselves design systems to keep oppressors in power. Oppressors are simply people who act under the influence of evil. Jesus told us that the ruler of this world is the devil. People fall under his rule when they reject God. You are partially right, things won't be 'squared' exactly; people will find themselves at one end of two extremes depending mostly on how they lived this life.
To say that there is an absolute code of morality, ideal, unchaging, is to say claim a morality seperate from any person or group of people.
This is true, and my claim is that Christian morality is necessarily absolute for all of humanity. Why?
I submit that morality is entirely meaningless outside the context of an interaction between people. There is no morality or immorality in the absence of a person, or even for a single person in isolation.
...Because we were not created soulless animals, nor were we created for life in a bottle.
Morality is also a function of the people involved. It is not immoral to whip someone who enjoys being whipped.
How many people do you know enjoy being whipped? I realize your statement is purely hypothetical; however, if you want to claim that whipping someone is moral, then you would have to completely isolate the case. Not only would the receiver need to enjoy it, but the giver would need to enjoy doing it. In addition, there should be no chance of such actions spilling out into a context where whipping is deemed unacceptable.
And here is a deep one - can an action truely be immoral if the person doing it has literaly no concept of it being immoral? Since so many concepts have pretty much already been shared and spread globally it is difficult to come up with suitable examples other than small children. When a toddler "steals" a hundred dollar bill, is it immoral?
Absolutely. If one does not understand that what he or she does is wrong, the fact of its wrongness remains. The consequences of the sin propagate regardless. Only culpability is mitigated. The need for correction remains.
For example, when can we say it is right to steal?
If you find yourself in an isolated group of people ALL of whom continously steal indisciminantly, then "theft" ceases to be meaningful. You may not know which 5 people stole your food, but you have contributed it to the group (unwillingly, yet still contributed). It would be perfectly moral to survive and function in the group by "stealing" food from someone else. If the person you took it from wasn't the person who stole from you, it is quite possible that they will get food from the person who did steal from you.
I'd certainly don't claim it would be a good social system, it would be a disaster.
By definition morality is concerned with the principles of right conduct. Therefore returning evil with evil would be considered immoral even if it could be justified. BTW, most of the bolded statements you made previously I would consider axiomatic truths rather than moral principles.
I was merely saying that being moral does not imply you have to starve to death if you found yourself in that society. I was giving an exaple where "stealing" would be moral (meaning not immoral).
There are many potential problems in going along with the norm of sinful culture. If one were to continue the cycle, they could never break it. Generations of experience can be improved upon through education and good example.
Do you claim that your "absolute righteous moral code" is somehow immune to difficulties caused by imperfect understanding?
Absolutely not. Human nature would make such difficulties inevitable with any code of behavior. This says about human fallibility but little about the morality of the code itself.
Why do you instinctively not capitalize it[god]?
Because I rarely use it as a proper noun.
[snip]
The greeks had many gods.
[snip]
Would it be more accurate to say that you have a general grammatical weakness in recognizing and thus capitalizing proper nouns?
>At it's best, religion can promote greater understanding, but
Here you indict yourself of the same prejudice
Prejudice? Care to be more specific, or was that just a generic attack because you didn't like my critique on religion?
I said that religions have good effects and bad effects.
It was clear from the context that you did not hold religion in high regard. I deemed that position objectionable due to the fact that it could only be held in ignorance of the bigger picture.
I observed that they rely on faith,
The Christian concept of faith is not meant to be divorced from reason. It is not blind faith that we have. Christian faith is based on experience. This experience most often is not our own, but some are incapable of learning otherwise...
they expect you to follow their rules,
And following religious rules is bad because?
they reject rational argument where they conflict with religous beliefs,
Careful. Such criticism is valid only against certain practitioners of religion and not religion itself. None of the major religions promote irrational argument.
they reject other religions,
I suspect this too is most often a byproduct of the layperson, and not religious teaching. The Christian Church teaches that we should learn about other religions; thus we should not reject them, but neither are we encouraged to practice them.
imply that belief in God generates more immorality than otherwise.
All major religions are a package-deal of all sorts of beliefs.
some are bad "people of another religion are evil and going to hell, so it's good to kill them"
What religion teaches this? What is the source of your knowledge?
and some are just silly (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)
The subject debate has been shown to be a fictitious account originated by yet another anti-religion propagandist.
A big problem is that religions don't take kindly to discarding the harmfull or silly bits.
This is a broad and unsupported accusation; are you fond of making enemies?
But this is obviously error.
I dissagree so it obviously isn't obvious. We don't have another earth without religions to make a comparison, so it's kind of hard to prove things would be better or worse. We are left with a pair of differing oppinions.
As I pointed out, this is untrue. We have within human history plenty of examples that effectively illustrate the defectiveness of societies that operate divorced from religious influence.
Not so incidentally, the worst of these attempt to motivate conflict amongst and between uneducated religious in order to achieve their own selfish desires.
This was actually one of my points:) The person doing this could be secular-based or religious-based.
Historical record indicates that secular authorities have committed the vast majority of such offenses. Of these most have been specifically anti-religious. Normally those who commit offenses in the name of religion are not "religious based"; rather they operate in opposition to the principles of their faith.
The problem is that religion is a great tool for manipulating people to behave irrationally or immorally (of course they are told that it is the moral thing to do).
Religion has proven to be a rather poor tool for manipulation into immorality. To the contrary, it is often attacked by the wicked because they recognize it as a highly effective inhibitor to the fulfillment of their own selfish desires.
To the contrary, religion appeals to common sense
Religions contain large portions that flat out violate common sense.
[snip]
They teach people how to believe things that are blatantly false, to reject/ignore anything to the contrary.
Another broad and unsupported statement; provide examples.
it holds to moral principles that contain value proven over time.
Yes, religions certainly do contain / promote positive things. Are you saying that the time proven principles cannot exist outside of religion? I think it's silly to tell people not to steal because the'll burn in hell and get jabbed by devils with pitchforks for eternity.
I'm saying you CAN have all the positive things that religions promote. You just accept them and promote tham because they ARE good and positive, not because God Says So.
It's fine to believe in god, but anyone who tells you What God Wants is manipulating you. That manipulation may be used to to do good things - "don't kill people", but it can be abused - "kill the sinners".
the golden rule is essentially a summary of a set of Christian moral commands. When groups of people attempt to live according to the entire code of morality, they don't find themselves in conflict.
LOL, do you have any clue what you just said? Essentially: If everyone lived by the entirety of my religious code then everything would be perfect.
I never said that things would be perfect, only that they would be able to avoid conflict.
The obvious collary is that all confict is caused by all the damned (pun intended) people who don't follow my religion.
You're extrapolating that which was never intended. The purpose of my statement was only to clarify the context of validity of the golden rule. The supposition that "all conflict is caused by all the damned (other people)" is ridiculous.
Just for fun lets take Satan worshipers. They worship God (capital G proper noun). Now you want to claim their God isn't your God? So you want to pick and choose which religions are to your liking?
The devil is not a god, and certainly would never teach a moral code of conduct anywhere near that of God.
since for the most part, they teach the same morality
Then what's wrong with cutting morality free of the religion? It's all pretty much the same, but you can't have it without religion? And atheists can't have it?
You seem to be intent on cutting religion out of society. Are you aware that history is replete with the failure of utopian experiments in which society was designed based in 'well intentioned humanism'? Do you think that man can create a system that effectively counters human nature any better then God does? Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. Faith is more than just belief.
You can't pick and choose the best of each because everything Comes From God. Atheists are free to gain morals from all religions.
Christians already have the means to adapt their faith in the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to 'keep up with the times', we trust that the people who devote their lives to the service of God and thus man are well capable of defining morality. Trust is another aspect of faith.
>Do unto others as others would reasonably have you do unto them.
So if the norm of a particular culture accepts that it is OK to engage in selfish pursuits as it is expected that others will naturally attempt to exploit
While they would reasonably have me exploit them, they would also reasonably have me co-operate with them, which they would preffer. Either choice would be moral. Remember, morality also mean FAIRNESS, and subjecting yourself to one-way exploitation is both unfair and stupid.
Morality is not the same as fairness. Theft committed for any reason is still theft; it is taking that which does not belong to you. Inevitably it will only serve to worsen the condition of those who act within such a system.
I for one would not wish to participate in or be subject to them.
Neither would I. The system you made up is a bad one. That has nothing to do with my "revisionist" rule though. My rule describes what to do in any situation.
Nevertheless, such systems exist all over the place, particularly in 'inner city America'. They are perpetually destructive. And following your rule would do nothing to prevent their growth.
The fact of the matter is that no one rule can be effective (yours included) if it is not sufficiently qualified. This was my point. You divorced the Golden Rule from its Christian context. That ultimately is what caused you to find it objectionable. You don't want a 9-5 job? Fine. Believe in repaying evil with evil? Believe vigilante justice is moral? Oops, I see problems on the horizon.
Assuming you're not trying to trick me with an unknown acronym No;-).
IAW = In Accordance With
Sure they might make some world changing discovery, but they might also rob and kill you.
Of course, nobody can say beforehand, but the latter is statistically much more likely.
I would question the statistics that lead you to this conclusion. What I believe likely is that you exist in an evironment that is essentially un-Christian in nature and thus your opinions have been formed. For example, it would be difficult to grow up in south Africa and come to conclusions about humsn nature different from your own. However, I have seen Christianity work, and for most of us who are a part of it, such a negativistic approach to life is prejudiced in unlikely realities.
There is not much point in arging about what the effects of a life may or may not be. Even if one could make statisticly accurate predictions regarding the probable outcome, such discussion is based only upon a utilitarian approach to the value of life. Essentially, we would be taking upon ourselves judgement that is better left to God. Abortion is an extremely prejudicial act.
My opposition to abortion is based both in utilitarian and Christian arguement. I do not make stong distictions between them as Christianity and the Church are given to serve humanity. The Christian concept of justice demands that blessing be withheld from those who tolerate wickedness. Those who practice evil are destroyed. God has manifest himself troughout history in such deterministic fashion.
More accurately, a fair amount of research leads to you coming up with your understanding of what the point is.
To the contrary, I can and have often come to my own understanding without any research at all. Left to my own, I amount to very little. Most of that which I have of any value comes from others. True wisdom and understanding is a gift of the Lord. Often my initial understanding is very limited and sometimes completely misses the mark.
The Bible is probably the most studied literary work of human history. Surely there have arisen many different interpretations and most of these I'm sure have been analyzed extensively. Certainly not all are valid. God calls most Church religious; they dedicate their lives to knowing and serving God. Therefore, it would be wise for us to pay particular attention to what the churches have to say on any particular matter, especially those dealing with interpretation of Scripture. Do you think they are more susceptible to error than those of us who do not dedicate our lives to the Lord?
I should also point out any particular biblical passage can hold two or more different yet valid interpretations. The principle is spiritual in nature and not confined to scriptural interpretation. Many arguments arise from personal perspectives that attempt to validate their own perspectives in ignorance of the conditions which lead others to hold what may initially appear to be opinions contrary to their own. Evolution vs. creation is a prime example of this.
There is another possible interpretation of Gen 1:14-19. The one I am thinking of is allegorical, recognizing it requires what we would today consider to be basic scientific and Christian knowledge. Do you see it; do you understand what I am talking about?
Now when it is not just possible, but a fact that your interpretation of a given passage might be "Jesus said love everybody", while somebody else's interpretation is "Jesus said to oppress, torture, and kill anybody who does X", that is a very serious problem
Indeed, though I believe such contrast in interpretation unlikely assuming that the same passage is actually being referenced.
So the fact is that he chose to do it in such a way as to cause all of the suffering that this ambiguity has caused.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe this; God does not cause people to suffer. Normally they bring suffering on themselves; often by rejecting him.
There are two distinctly different spiritual natures; one exists to give life, the other for bringing death and destruction. Both serve God. The children of the Lord serve willingly because they recognize his goodness. However, others serve unknowingly. They are given the spirit of death and destruction to destroy that which is unholy. Normally, they are confined to themselves, though they can act for the purpose of bringing discipline to the Lord's Children when needed.
All things are subject to the will of God for the greater good.
I simply see it as something attempting to describe a complex universe in ways understandable to the people of the time.
This seems very unlikely unless god is a total prick.
He has no need to speak down to people, he could make them understand it perfectly clearly, so that it would be put down correctly in that little book of his.
Let's take an example of the first creation story in Gen 1. Since I know you would probably turn into a pillar of salt if you actually had to touch a Bible, I'll quote here the relevant verses;)
3-5: Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed -- the first day.
14-19: Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened: God made the two great light lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to shed light upon the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. Evening came and morning followed -- the fourth day.
Now of course we understand today that all light comes from the sun. We are engulfed with light during the day because of the manner in which E-M radiation interacts with particulate matter (absorption, re-radiation, reflection, scatter, etc). I'm sure the author of this story had no clue regarding our current scientific understanding of the nature of the solar system. Thus he could not have authored the story according to modern knowledge, nor would it have been understandable to the people of the time without an education that would have been completely above the understanding of their primitive culture. Thus we get the concept of light and darkness existing apart from the sun.
There are several points to take from this. The Bible is meant to be a timeless guide. However, in order to be effective it needs to be accurately interpreted in context. Not all of the stories are literally true, nor could they reasonably be expected to be. Often a fair amount of research is required to understand the point of any particular passage.
This is one reason the Church exists: to ensure that as culture, science, and language evolve, the original meaning and intent of Scripture is not lost.
Much of the text of the Old Testament was transcribed based on oral traditions handed down through generations. There are many fantastical stories that are told simply to illustrate important moral lessons. It's obviously implausible that Jonah could have been eaten by a whale, survived for three days inside of it, and then be regurgitated to complete his assigned mission. The events themselves are fantastical; nonetheless, there are several valuable lessons to be learned from the story.
There were probably many things that happened thousands of years ago that were at the time considered miracles. Today we can explain many of these scientifically. However, are not miracles by definition things that happen that we consider beyond human understanding? Were we to travel back in time two thousand years with our current technology I'm sure we could produce things that would seem every bit as miraculous as turning water into wine was to the people of the time. However, I bet there are miracles buried in history as told in the Bible that will remain a testament to divine knowledge and power throughout time.
im an atheist whos pro-life because for me, "greater good for the greatest number" includes fetuses.
I have just got to know how you can rationalize this.
Who is to say what will come of any particular life? Does a baby have to be wanted by its biological mother to enjoy life? to contribute to society? Is a life only to be valued IAW its utilitarian return? If you view people primarily as resource consumers, and not as individuals with the capacity to love and be loved, then your perspective is rather limited and dim.
For all you know, that aborted fetus could have one day figured out how to power the city of New York for an entire year on one jar of peanut butter. But why should God give that kind of blessing to people that reject life given to them?
Our understanding of morality IS dynamic and changing because each generation builds upon and hopefully supercedes the understanding of our ancestors.
I think it would be more accurate to say that generational application of the principles of morality is dynamic and not morality itself.
I obviously do not live in the described ideal society, but neither is my behavior ideal. Society influences my behavior, and my behavior influences society. To the extent I can, I do so towards that ideal.
Here is something to think about:
At what point can we justify acing against an absolute code of morality? For example, when can we say it is right to steal?
When one attempts to justify actions contrary to an absolute righteous moral code, there are presumptions unique to the context no? Take for example Robin Hood. The presumption of justification is that we are aware of all the facts surrounding the case and capable of making accurate judgments regarding the impacts of our decided actions. However, what happens if there is imperfect understanding on our part or the part of a secondary/tertiary/... observer?
How do you think a Christian with very strong faith in God might answer the question?
Prejudice is immoral, born of inadaquate understanding.
Not necessarily. We all conceive with prejudice. That does not mean our conclusions are normally inadequately informed or immoral.
(That was interesting, I typed 'god', and without thinking went back and changed it to 'God'. Pause. Think. Why? Because *I* write 'god', but I was saying where I think *you* belive they come from, and I think you believe they come from a capital 'G', grin)
In the context of your usage, "God" is a proper noun; therefore, the rules of grammar demand the word be capitalized. Why do you instinctively not capitalize it?
At it's best, religion can promote greater understanding, but
Here you indict yourself of the same prejudice you accused the parent poster of. While you correctly pointed out that one does not have to believe in God to be moral, you go on to imply that belief in God generates more immorality than otherwise. But this is obviously error. You fail to give merit to the immeasurable contributions to society given by not only religious organizations, but their followers as well. In addition, you ignore that the most immoral acts in history have been committed by specifically atheistic secular authorities in far greater number than those done in the name of God. Not so incidentally, the worst of these attempt to motivate conflict amongst and between uneducated religious in order to achieve their own selfish desires.
...in the main it relies on blind faith, obedience, rejection of reason,...
To the contrary, religion appeals to common sense in part because it holds to moral principles that contain value proven over time.
I'd also like to point of one of the most severely flawed pieces of "popular morality", the golden rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
A polar bear would no more wish you to place him on a tropical beach than you would wish the polar bear to place you in the arctic ocean.
The golden rule is essentially a summary of a set of Christian moral commands. When groups of people attempt to live according to the entire code of morality, they don't find themselves in conflict. This could be said of most any religion based on God since for the most part, they teach the same morality. Most problems arise between groups who hold fundamentally different beliefs, or between people who mis-understand or distort their faith.
A better revision would be: Do unto others as others would reasonably have you do unto them.
So if the norm of a particular culture accepts that it is OK to engage in selfish pursuits as it is expected that others will naturally attempt to exploit you, would you consider it OK to continue the cycle? There are entire governments, cultures, and organizations that act according to your revisionist rule, and I for one would not wish to participate in or be subject to them.
What if you want to archive your back-ups? I was very surprised to learn that CD-R's are really only reliable for 6-10 years (IAW the company I work for). I've read that memory sticks, compact flash, and other solid state storage devices are rated for 10 years. I don't know about hard drives. Tape just seems too slow and unwieldy.
I think the ideal media would be small like a floppy and dense enough to hold maybe 20 GB of data. The data should be reliable for at least 100 years without requiring refreshment. It shouldn't take more than an hour to fill it up. I should be able to plug the reader/writer into my comp via USB 2, and it should be small and portable.
I don't want to hurt anyone's sensibilities, but history is filled with instances of the Christian church condemning the scientific world and trying to regulate what the scientists say.
To say that Christian history is "filled with instances" is I think a bit misleading. The Church recognizes that it serves a different role than science and so does not regulate science except to promote what is commonly thought to be scientifically true. There have been scientific discoveries and theories built upon them that have thrown *everyone* for a loop.
I am interested in knowing the views of all you calm people out there as to why evolution is so vigorously attacked by America's religious Christians alone and not so much by other religions/countries?
What makes you think such people are really Christians?
If there are zany creationists reading this out there, please do feel free to email me links or give me better arguments via email. I've had this invitation open for years, but no one has given me anything other than b.s. so far.
Since you asked for a *zany* creationists reply...
For the same reason God can't be proven to exist, I don't think that creationism can be proven true; at least not through purely scientific means. Though I do believe that one can infer truth about creationism from scientific evidence stemming from the nature of evolution itself. Go here and look at the questions posed at the bottom of the page.
Over a historically very short period -- just 40 million years -- the basic forms of just about all of life in existence evolved. I think it is interesting to note that the first story of creation as told in the book of Genesis gives a fairly accurate account of the order in which life evolved as determined through science. Now I don't know how much people knew about the Cambrian period almost 2000 years ago, but the correlation is interesting. Genetically speaking, it's entirely possible that God had it all planned out before the Cambrian period even began, or even before the world was created. The triggers that have shaped and continue to shape our evolution could have been placed already and we just haven't discovered them yet. Ever see 2001: A Space Odyssey? Remember how each time the monolith is discovered, life evolves in some significant fashion? Isn't it funny how each generation tends to rediscover the monolith in its own way and time?
Scientists and computer programmer types generally have a hard time accepting the existence of God and thus creationism. I think this results from a tendency to develop knowledge from that which is directly observable. Taken to the extreme, as was the case for Einstein, they can come to knowledge of God as the force behind the design of the universe. This is a result of the fact that existence itself is so complex and yet there is order to it.
I believe that any and all possible paths we have or can travel have been plowed already. However, it is one thing to simply shine a light in front of yourself as you walk and completely another to look back over where you have traveled and think "why?" I think it is here that we can best determine where we might be going.
Well, for married couples the Church teaches that sex be oriented towards the purposes of procreation and forming unity. As I read it, this means that sex outside of procreation is permitted only if it is necessary for maintaining the health of the marriage; the emphasis being on refraining if you can. Even so, natural family planning methods without contraceptives are 98% effective; it's not asking much really. Besides, why make love using a condom? Plus there is something to be said for anticipation.
I'm pretty sure the Church would condemn female circumcision as an unnatural and unhealthy act.
Therefore, I believe these criticisms of the Church are invalid.
Human Papillomavirus was the one I was thinking about. Saw it on TV a couple weeks ago. It was a real eye opener for me since I had always thought that they were effective against the spread of disease. Guess that shows why it's important to follow the Church as you can't always get good info from other sources. Thanks for the posting the links!
Well, all of this is Old Testament stuff. As Christians, we live under the New Testament covenant established by Christ. It seems to me that the new law is much simpler than the laws established before Christ.
While I'd agree that some of the actions God took seem rash, I don't think it is wise to pass judgment on actions God takes in general. I really don't know much about the peoples of Old Testament times, but it seems to me they were fairly simple and thus more suitable to following cut and dry rules. I think punishment was dealt to preserve a better future for those who did follow God's rules. Since God was the Creator, he had a unique ultra-complex understanding of what was good for the people and what was destructive. Thus obedience to God was very important; for our own sakes. I don't think God destroyed anybody without giving them a chance to repent. I also tend to think that all who died apart from God before Christ were given a chance to enter Heaven through Christ after his death.
From Christ we get clear council and the benefit of the Holy Spirit, which perhaps only a handful of people possessed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit councils primarily through the Church, but the basic laws remain the same since we are in fact still the same physical and spiritual creatures by nature, and live in the same world of God's creation.
I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science...
Don't understand what you are talking about here. The Church is well aware of the state of the art in technology, and they do not judge the validity of scientific claims.
...their anti-contraceptive stance...
This is true, but for good reason. Contraceptives are not entirely effective. Becoming pregnant affects persons for the rest of their lives. There is at least one sexually transmitted disease that contraceptives are entirely ineffective at preventing.
...and their denial of female reproductive rights.
I'm Catholic and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this. Catholic couples are *encouraged* by the Church to have and raise children. This is the ultimate goal of a marriage relationship.
I was coerced into studying the Bible when I was a child, but I did study it. Their god loves recommending murder, torture, rape, etc.
Evidently those who "coerced" you into studing the Bible never bothered teaching you about the 10 commandments, and never let you read the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Yes, on formal occasions he also makes more restrained statements recommending tolerance.
Tolerance of what? Tolerance of evil is not a Christian virtue. Christians are called to council against evil and lead by example. This for the greater benefit of all.
So I consider the catholic church to be a much worse offender than the web sites, this without even being moved to find out what the web sites said.
This attitude is what keeps you from understanding Christ and the Catholic Church. If you make no effort to understand why people believe as they do, not only will you continue in error, you will likely lead others into error as well. If you want to know what the Church teaches about God, participate. You are doing yourself injustice if you accept anybody else's opinion on the matter. If after learning from the Church, you still do not agree, at least you will have some ground to stand on when you criticize.
...media are market-driven, not idea-substance-or-content driven.
While I generally agree with this, I think it depends on the medium. I don't see why the local paper would need to focus on high dollar customers; they should be trying to reach the broadest market. It seems to me that this would mean factual reporting on stories of general interest. I say this, but still I see a lot of sensationalistic crap in our papers, so I don't subscribe. Same for CNN or similar TV media, I don't watch them much either, what's the point? I think there is something more at work here than simplistic greed. Why don't we see sensationalistic reporting on interesting or uplifting stories rather than depressing angles on uninteresting stories? Our media is more effective at spreading terror than Al Qaeda. My own opinion is it has more to do with bad management influenced by warped values.
Cable channels, newspapers and newsmagazines cater to wealthy people -- no matter what color -- because those are the consumers advertisers want to reach.
While this does make sense, I'd be interested to see figures on revenue generated from readership/viewers as compared to sponsors/advertisers though. As a rule of thumb: more facts, less commentary. Thus I suppose I could rate your commentary as trolling; you make your own point. Seriously, I suspect you wouldn't get heckled so much if you supported your opinions with facts.
Even so-called serious media like the New York Times and Washington Post are market-driven, focused increasingly on high-end consumer products spawned by digital technology...
I couldn't believe the amount of coverage that that "tilt and run vehicle" got in the media. It might have been amusing to watch Paula Zahn scoot around the sidewalk on one of these things, but my gosh, several days in a row? From how many different sources? From this, Slashdot was not immune. Not only was this thing probably uninteresting to most people, it's not even mass marketable. There are more interesting and important thing to report on like:
Intellectual property and copyright laws have been re-written, thanks to digital technology, yet these stories get sporadic and incomplete coverage.
Methinks there is more to it then greed...
The only mystery is how long it will take the media -- and more importantly, the public -- to understand and acknowledge the reality of their own new, intensely corporate, value system.
Well it's not my value system, and it never was. It's a shame really that mass media is in such sad shape -- it could be a force for far greater good.
So what if the govt. does something I don't like and I don't feel like saying the pledge, does that mean nobody else should be able to say the pledge? Perhaps the entire pledge should be done away with.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I understand now. Thanks for your input Thomas.
There were, however, a significant sect of early Christianity who still considered themselves early jews.
I can see how Gentile converts might have called themselves Jewish. Christianity did evolve from the Jewish faith. In fact Christ himself was largely considered a Jew. The early Christian church consisted of informal faith communities each containing converts from Jewish and pagan religions, and perhaps atheists and agnostics. Formal hierarchical organization of the Church didn't happen for quite some time. Therefore, I believe it would make the most sense simply to call them Jewish or Gentile Christians.
If not for the outrageous heresies of the Gnostics, I doubt that the early Church would have formed into anything stronger than the current Protestant central authority--or, at least, the contemporary Jewish authorities. (Oh, them and the Roman Empire...)
I don't believe Gnostic heretics presented much of problem until about 200 AD. I consider this to be close to point at which we can say the Church was fairly well established, though I admit this is my subjective opinion. IMHO, it was mainly the Holy Spirit working from persecutions brought about by Jewish authorities, Roman authorities, and perhaps antagonistic Gentiles that most aided the growth of the early Church.
FYI, in practice, there really is no Protestant central authority. Even within specific Protestant faiths there are often significant differences between individual churches. The largest and most unified Christian church is the Catholic Church.
Again, the Jewish church is not Christian. Jewish contemporary authorities still specifically reject Christ as the Messiah. Therefore, those who consider themselves a "Jew" would be Jewish, and a "Messianic Jew" would probably more appropriately be considered Christian.
He didn't say "Messianic Jew", he said "Jew". The Jewish faith officially rejects Christ as the Messiah. They believe that the Messiah has yet to come.
There are several branches of Christianity, but the Church as given to us by Christ is I believe well defined. The Jewish faith is also well defined. However, I don't believe that there are many branches of Judaism. Even if there were, I think accepting Christ as Messiah would represent a pretty drastic shift in their faith. Rejection of Christ as Messiah was what started the Church down these two separate paths.
In the early days of Christianity, there were three major sects--the Christians, the Jews, and the Gnostics.
...and the Gnostics--well, the gnostics are why the strong central church formed,
...and why the Inquisition was so harsh.
Not quite, there were Jews and Gentiles and Jewish and Gentile Christians. Gentiles were everyone not Jewish.
The Jews were, well, jewish folk who lived as jews but thought that Jesus was the Messiah (sorta like "Jews for Jesus.")
Where did you get this idea? The Jews specifically rejected Jesus as the Messiah. This is still the case today.
Not just the Gnostics, but all Jews and Gentiles who persected the church.
The Inquisition was employed against all heretics. In my opinion, it like the crusades is a blemish on the face of Christianity because of the essentially un-Christian methods employed.
Tobacco causes lung cancer.
Smoke of any kind (including second hand) can be detrimental not only to our health, but it causes damage to the environment and can be hard to fix. My grandparents smoke habitually and I get a sick feeling just by entering their house. They don't have to be smoking for this to happen.
Violent video games dont' cause violence.
Not directly, but there is evidence that they can lead to violence. As a formerly avid Quake fan, I know from experience how angry or frustrated the game could make me. Granted I was capable of handling these situations, but I was none the better off for them.
They give violent people new ideas.
OK, so is this something we should be promoting? Our culture today is doing a good job of demonstrating it's inability to accept personal responsibility. You can't force people to be responsible. However, government does have a responsibility to it's people to protect them from themselves. Sometimes that calls us to sacrifice.
They were going to be violent anyway.
Presumption. Fire does not always need kindle, but it sure starts easily with it. The fact of the matter is that some will always be selfish, irresponsible, and generally evil. However, in many cases people are just too mentally slow, impaired, retarded, or whatever to function well in society. In some cases, this is more obvious than in others, and often it is not the fault of those who are. So how do you deal with such problems?
If anythign it draws these loonies out so we can lock them up.
At what cost? What is ultimately to be gained? Should we make the monster, bait a trap, and throw it into a cage that we cannot hold it in? This is the system that we have today. Ultimately we are responsible, and will be accountable for what we do and what we create.
It should be a crime not to bring up your children properly.
We can't always rely on parents to bring their kids up properly. Even when they do, there are plenty of influences in the world to lead them into doing the wrong things. Our presently deficient culture is due in no small part to the corrupting influence of TV, Hollywood, politicians, etc, all who pander to our own selfish concerns. We make our beds and sleep in them. But we don't live in a vacuum. We make the beds of others too and we need to start thinking along these lines.
If I want to keep my daughter away from violence, I think my best bet is to turn off the nightly news...
...and give her permission to skip history class.
Or better yet, throw the TV out.
The world can make an alligator look like a stallion; it can also make a stallion look like an alligator.
But you did try to refute it by asserting that they would be a drain on resources in an overcrowded world. And my point was that you were making predictions about the future state of society that might or might not occur. If I want to prove that banning abortion provides the most good to the most amount of people all I have to do is show that the person is likely to make a net contribution to society.
One doesn't have to be a Nobel prize winning scientist, the guy who collects our garbage serves good enough utilitarian purpose. Even criminals can be used productively.
However, even this approach misses the mark because there is much more to life than that which we assign to it. The ultimate judge of the value of any particular life is the person who lives it. People who start life up for adoption or live in a state funded institution normally have nowhere to go but up. Even so, it does not mean that they can't enjoy life. People should give God a chance.
I live in America. I have seen some people who are Christians who are very nice people. I have also seen the worst scum around hiding behind a claim of Christianity which seems to blind other Christians to their atrocities.
This is one of the reasons I continue to discuss things with you. You are at least rational enough to recognize that it is not religion itself that causes problems, but *people* who claim to be acting IAW their religion.
Have you seen the times where it doesn't? I suspect you don't really see these.
You're right I haven't.
Or rather, that you thank god for the good things that come about from it, yet absolutely forget to mention him when it fucks up lives, cultures, and the world. Of course, that's just free will.
You're assigning blame to God for things better assigned to the devil, or individuals themselves. Free will and life after death go a long way towards explaining why God allows evil to act in the world, but there are more reasons than these.
Not at all. Disliking Christianity isn't negative. It's self preservation based on the history of your religion. Your approach seems much more based in "unlikely realities". If you really can't see the dichotomy between thanking god for the good and ignoring his contributions to the bad, then that is living in unreality.
First, you are focusing only on the bad. However, the contributions far outweigh the harm done. Second, all religious and all secular institutions have 'bad' in their history. But what has been the cause, and what institutions have the best records? Third, I don't think I am unrealistic in my belief that it is people who love themselves and who love sin and not God that's the problem.
The original poster argued that every potential life will have a net positive affect. My point is that this isn't true.
My point is that it is your nature to see things mainly in the negative that gives you this perspective. Realize that negativism is degenerative and self-fulfilling. If you see something you don't like then do something about it, don't blame God. Get out and do something you like instead of watching that crap on TV, don't get caught up in unproductive speculative gossip. Go to church, find new friends, do anything to get you out of that situation.
It is letting people make their own decisions about the evolution of their own life.
Quite the opposite, it's making decisions about someone else's life presumptively.
Again, not true. It is the mature, rational decision that this is not the time and place to bring a child into the world.
The time for that decision is before having sex. If someone isn't ready to have children, they shouldn't have sex. If they do anyway, they can give the child up, but they should never kill it.
Christianity itself might have the potential of doing good for humanity, but so many who claim to be christians are so much worse than non-religious people at walking the walk. The overwhelming prevalence of this is, of course, based solely on my own observations, so feel free to discount this point.
It's irrelevant. If someone tells a person not to steal and they steal anyway, it makes no sense to blame the person who told them not to. People who put their Christianity on display and then do bad things serve the devil, I don't care who they claim to be. Worse than non-religious people at walking the walk? The record proves otherwise. All I have to do is turn on the TV and I can see the immoral crap promoted and done by non religious sources. The churches effectively counter these influences.
The church though. You have got to be kidding me. The church exists for the sole purpose of expanding its own power structure. The church has nothing to do with christianity.
You must be talking about hollywood churches and TV evangelists. These are not "the church". The major churches are strictly non-profit organizations. That's probably one reason why we don't see them represented on network TV very much.
Yeah, I say let them go forth across the world and enslave torture and murder anybody they want to for just by claiming belief in me they are holy and all others are scum." This *is* the history of the church.
These things blemish the church of the past, but they are not "the history of the church". I should point out that all governments and human institutions have these marks on their record. But considering how old, large, and resilient the church is, it is amazing how little can be said against it in comparison to other organizations.
In fact god has manifest himself throughout history by destroying the good and the evil completely blindly. People do this, not God. In fact, if you actually look around you today and look at history, if you believe in any sort of manifestation of god, he is quite squarely in favor of evil since evil is way ahead in the game in this world.
My perspective is different. That evil which does exist exists because people ignore God, not because of God.
Sure, it'll all be squared in the next. Whether this is true or not, I defy you to come up with a better system to keep oppressors in power.
The oppressors themselves design systems to keep oppressors in power. Oppressors are simply people who act under the influence of evil. Jesus told us that the ruler of this world is the devil. People fall under his rule when they reject God. You are partially right, things won't be 'squared' exactly; people will find themselves at one end of two extremes depending mostly on how they lived this life.
This is true, and my claim is that Christian morality is necessarily absolute for all of humanity. Why?
I submit that morality is entirely meaningless outside the context of an interaction between people. There is no morality or immorality in the absence of a person, or even for a single person in isolation.
Morality is also a function of the people involved. It is not immoral to whip someone who enjoys being whipped.
How many people do you know enjoy being whipped? I realize your statement is purely hypothetical; however, if you want to claim that whipping someone is moral, then you would have to completely isolate the case. Not only would the receiver need to enjoy it, but the giver would need to enjoy doing it. In addition, there should be no chance of such actions spilling out into a context where whipping is deemed unacceptable.
And here is a deep one - can an action truely be immoral if the person doing it has literaly no concept of it being immoral? Since so many concepts have pretty much already been shared and spread globally it is difficult to come up with suitable examples other than small children. When a toddler "steals" a hundred dollar bill, is it immoral?
Absolutely. If one does not understand that what he or she does is wrong, the fact of its wrongness remains. The consequences of the sin propagate regardless. Only culpability is mitigated. The need for correction remains.
If you find yourself in an isolated group of people ALL of whom continously steal indisciminantly, then "theft" ceases to be meaningful. You may not know which 5 people stole your food, but you have contributed it to the group (unwillingly, yet still contributed). It would be perfectly moral to survive and function in the group by "stealing" food from someone else. If the person you took it from wasn't the person who stole from you, it is quite possible that they will get food from the person who did steal from you. I'd certainly don't claim it would be a good social system, it would be a disaster.
By definition morality is concerned with the principles of right conduct. Therefore returning evil with evil would be considered immoral even if it could be justified. BTW, most of the bolded statements you made previously I would consider axiomatic truths rather than moral principles.
I was merely saying that being moral does not imply you have to starve to death if you found yourself in that society. I was giving an exaple where "stealing" would be moral (meaning not immoral).
There are many potential problems in going along with the norm of sinful culture. If one were to continue the cycle, they could never break it. Generations of experience can be improved upon through education and good example.
Do you claim that your "absolute righteous moral code" is somehow immune to difficulties caused by imperfect understanding?
Absolutely not. Human nature would make such difficulties inevitable with any code of behavior. This says about human fallibility but little about the morality of the code itself.
Because I rarely use it as a proper noun. [snip] The greeks had many gods. [snip]
Would it be more accurate to say that you have a general grammatical weakness in recognizing and thus capitalizing proper nouns?
Prejudice? Care to be more specific, or was that just a generic attack because you didn't like my critique on religion? I said that religions have good effects and bad effects.
It was clear from the context that you did not hold religion in high regard. I deemed that position objectionable due to the fact that it could only be held in ignorance of the bigger picture.
I observed that they rely on faith,
The Christian concept of faith is not meant to be divorced from reason. It is not blind faith that we have. Christian faith is based on experience. This experience most often is not our own, but some are incapable of learning otherwise...
they expect you to follow their rules,
And following religious rules is bad because?
they reject rational argument where they conflict with religous beliefs,
Careful. Such criticism is valid only against certain practitioners of religion and not religion itself. None of the major religions promote irrational argument.
they reject other religions,
I suspect this too is most often a byproduct of the layperson, and not religious teaching. The Christian Church teaches that we should learn about other religions; thus we should not reject them, but neither are we encouraged to practice them.
All major religions are a package-deal of all sorts of beliefs. some are bad "people of another religion are evil and going to hell, so it's good to kill them"
What religion teaches this? What is the source of your knowledge?
and some are just silly (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin)
The subject debate has been shown to be a fictitious account originated by yet another anti-religion propagandist.
A big problem is that religions don't take kindly to discarding the harmfull or silly bits.
This is a broad and unsupported accusation; are you fond of making enemies?
I dissagree so it obviously isn't obvious. We don't have another earth without religions to make a comparison, so it's kind of hard to prove things would be better or worse. We are left with a pair of differing oppinions.
As I pointed out, this is untrue. We have within human history plenty of examples that effectively illustrate the defectiveness of societies that operate divorced from religious influence.
This was actually one of my points
Historical record indicates that secular authorities have committed the vast majority of such offenses. Of these most have been specifically anti-religious. Normally those who commit offenses in the name of religion are not "religious based"; rather they operate in opposition to the principles of their faith.
The problem is that religion is a great tool for manipulating people to behave irrationally or immorally (of course they are told that it is the moral thing to do).
Religion has proven to be a rather poor tool for manipulation into immorality. To the contrary, it is often attacked by the wicked because they recognize it as a highly effective inhibitor to the fulfillment of their own selfish desires.
Religions contain large portions that flat out violate common sense. [snip] They teach people how to believe things that are blatantly false, to reject/ignore anything to the contrary.
Another broad and unsupported statement; provide examples. Yes, religions certainly do contain / promote positive things. Are you saying that the time proven principles cannot exist outside of religion? I think it's silly to tell people not to steal because the'll burn in hell and get jabbed by devils with pitchforks for eternity. I'm saying you CAN have all the positive things that religions promote. You just accept them and promote tham because they ARE good and positive, not because God Says So. It's fine to believe in god, but anyone who tells you What God Wants is manipulating you. That manipulation may be used to to do good things - "don't kill people", but it can be abused - "kill the sinners".
LOL, do you have any clue what you just said? Essentially: If everyone lived by the entirety of my religious code then everything would be perfect.
I never said that things would be perfect, only that they would be able to avoid conflict.
The obvious collary is that all confict is caused by all the damned (pun intended) people who don't follow my religion.
You're extrapolating that which was never intended. The purpose of my statement was only to clarify the context of validity of the golden rule. The supposition that "all conflict is caused by all the damned (other people)" is ridiculous.
Just for fun lets take Satan worshipers. They worship God (capital G proper noun). Now you want to claim their God isn't your God? So you want to pick and choose which religions are to your liking?
The devil is not a god, and certainly would never teach a moral code of conduct anywhere near that of God. Then what's wrong with cutting morality free of the religion? It's all pretty much the same, but you can't have it without religion? And atheists can't have it?
You seem to be intent on cutting religion out of society. Are you aware that history is replete with the failure of utopian experiments in which society was designed based in 'well intentioned humanism'? Do you think that man can create a system that effectively counters human nature any better then God does? Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. Faith is more than just belief.
You can't pick and choose the best of each because everything Comes From God. Atheists are free to gain morals from all religions.
Christians already have the means to adapt their faith in the Church. It is the Church's responsibility to 'keep up with the times', we trust that the people who devote their lives to the service of God and thus man are well capable of defining morality. Trust is another aspect of faith. While they would reasonably have me exploit them, they would also reasonably have me co-operate with them, which they would preffer. Either choice would be moral. Remember, morality also mean FAIRNESS, and subjecting yourself to one-way exploitation is both unfair and stupid.
Morality is not the same as fairness. Theft committed for any reason is still theft; it is taking that which does not belong to you. Inevitably it will only serve to worsen the condition of those who act within such a system.
Neither would I. The system you made up is a bad one. That has nothing to do with my "revisionist" rule though. My rule describes what to do in any situation.
Nevertheless, such systems exist all over the place, particularly in 'inner city America'. They are perpetually destructive. And following your rule would do nothing to prevent their growth.
The fact of the matter is that no one rule can be effective (yours included) if it is not sufficiently qualified. This was my point. You divorced the Golden Rule from its Christian context. That ultimately is what caused you to find it objectionable. You don't want a 9-5 job? Fine. Believe in repaying evil with evil? Believe vigilante justice is moral? Oops, I see problems on the horizon.
Assuming you're not trying to trick me with an unknown acronym No ;-).
IAW = In Accordance With
Sure they might make some world changing discovery, but they might also rob and kill you. Of course, nobody can say beforehand, but the latter is statistically much more likely.
I would question the statistics that lead you to this conclusion. What I believe likely is that you exist in an evironment that is essentially un-Christian in nature and thus your opinions have been formed. For example, it would be difficult to grow up in south Africa and come to conclusions about humsn nature different from your own. However, I have seen Christianity work, and for most of us who are a part of it, such a negativistic approach to life is prejudiced in unlikely realities.
There is not much point in arging about what the effects of a life may or may not be. Even if one could make statisticly accurate predictions regarding the probable outcome, such discussion is based only upon a utilitarian approach to the value of life. Essentially, we would be taking upon ourselves judgement that is better left to God. Abortion is an extremely prejudicial act.
My opposition to abortion is based both in utilitarian and Christian arguement. I do not make stong distictions between them as Christianity and the Church are given to serve humanity. The Christian concept of justice demands that blessing be withheld from those who tolerate wickedness. Those who practice evil are destroyed. God has manifest himself troughout history in such deterministic fashion.
More accurately, a fair amount of research leads to you coming up with your understanding of what the point is.
To the contrary, I can and have often come to my own understanding without any research at all. Left to my own, I amount to very little. Most of that which I have of any value comes from others. True wisdom and understanding is a gift of the Lord. Often my initial understanding is very limited and sometimes completely misses the mark.
The Bible is probably the most studied literary work of human history. Surely there have arisen many different interpretations and most of these I'm sure have been analyzed extensively. Certainly not all are valid. God calls most Church religious; they dedicate their lives to knowing and serving God. Therefore, it would be wise for us to pay particular attention to what the churches have to say on any particular matter, especially those dealing with interpretation of Scripture. Do you think they are more susceptible to error than those of us who do not dedicate our lives to the Lord?
I should also point out any particular biblical passage can hold two or more different yet valid interpretations. The principle is spiritual in nature and not confined to scriptural interpretation. Many arguments arise from personal perspectives that attempt to validate their own perspectives in ignorance of the conditions which lead others to hold what may initially appear to be opinions contrary to their own. Evolution vs. creation is a prime example of this.
There is another possible interpretation of Gen 1:14-19. The one I am thinking of is allegorical, recognizing it requires what we would today consider to be basic scientific and Christian knowledge. Do you see it; do you understand what I am talking about?
Now when it is not just possible, but a fact that your interpretation of a given passage might be "Jesus said love everybody", while somebody else's interpretation is "Jesus said to oppress, torture, and kill anybody who does X", that is a very serious problem
Indeed, though I believe such contrast in interpretation unlikely assuming that the same passage is actually being referenced.
So the fact is that he chose to do it in such a way as to cause all of the suffering that this ambiguity has caused.
I'm not sure what leads you to believe this; God does not cause people to suffer. Normally they bring suffering on themselves; often by rejecting him.
There are two distinctly different spiritual natures; one exists to give life, the other for bringing death and destruction. Both serve God. The children of the Lord serve willingly because they recognize his goodness. However, others serve unknowingly. They are given the spirit of death and destruction to destroy that which is unholy. Normally, they are confined to themselves, though they can act for the purpose of bringing discipline to the Lord's Children when needed.
All things are subject to the will of God for the greater good.
Let's take an example of the first creation story in Gen 1. Since I know you would probably turn into a pillar of salt if you actually had to touch a Bible, I'll quote here the relevant verses
3-5: Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed -- the first day.
14-19: Then God said: "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth." And so it happened: God made the two great light lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to shed light upon the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw how good it was. Evening came and morning followed -- the fourth day.
Now of course we understand today that all light comes from the sun. We are engulfed with light during the day because of the manner in which E-M radiation interacts with particulate matter (absorption, re-radiation, reflection, scatter, etc). I'm sure the author of this story had no clue regarding our current scientific understanding of the nature of the solar system. Thus he could not have authored the story according to modern knowledge, nor would it have been understandable to the people of the time without an education that would have been completely above the understanding of their primitive culture. Thus we get the concept of light and darkness existing apart from the sun.
There are several points to take from this. The Bible is meant to be a timeless guide. However, in order to be effective it needs to be accurately interpreted in context. Not all of the stories are literally true, nor could they reasonably be expected to be. Often a fair amount of research is required to understand the point of any particular passage.
This is one reason the Church exists: to ensure that as culture, science, and language evolve, the original meaning and intent of Scripture is not lost.
Much of the text of the Old Testament was transcribed based on oral traditions handed down through generations. There are many fantastical stories that are told simply to illustrate important moral lessons. It's obviously implausible that Jonah could have been eaten by a whale, survived for three days inside of it, and then be regurgitated to complete his assigned mission. The events themselves are fantastical; nonetheless, there are several valuable lessons to be learned from the story.
There were probably many things that happened thousands of years ago that were at the time considered miracles. Today we can explain many of these scientifically. However, are not miracles by definition things that happen that we consider beyond human understanding? Were we to travel back in time two thousand years with our current technology I'm sure we could produce things that would seem every bit as miraculous as turning water into wine was to the people of the time. However, I bet there are miracles buried in history as told in the Bible that will remain a testament to divine knowledge and power throughout time.
Who is to say what will come of any particular life? Does a baby have to be wanted by its biological mother to enjoy life? to contribute to society? Is a life only to be valued IAW its utilitarian return? If you view people primarily as resource consumers, and not as individuals with the capacity to love and be loved, then your perspective is rather limited and dim.
For all you know, that aborted fetus could have one day figured out how to power the city of New York for an entire year on one jar of peanut butter. But why should God give that kind of blessing to people that reject life given to them?
Our understanding of morality IS dynamic and changing because each generation builds upon and hopefully supercedes the understanding of our ancestors.
...in the main it relies on blind faith, obedience, rejection of reason, ...
I think it would be more accurate to say that generational application of the principles of morality is dynamic and not morality itself.
I obviously do not live in the described ideal society, but neither is my behavior ideal. Society influences my behavior, and my behavior influences society. To the extent I can, I do so towards that ideal.
Here is something to think about:
At what point can we justify acing against an absolute code of morality? For example, when can we say it is right to steal?
When one attempts to justify actions contrary to an absolute righteous moral code, there are presumptions unique to the context no? Take for example Robin Hood. The presumption of justification is that we are aware of all the facts surrounding the case and capable of making accurate judgments regarding the impacts of our decided actions. However, what happens if there is imperfect understanding on our part or the part of a secondary/tertiary/... observer?
How do you think a Christian with very strong faith in God might answer the question?
Prejudice is immoral, born of inadaquate understanding.
Not necessarily. We all conceive with prejudice. That does not mean our conclusions are normally inadequately informed or immoral.
(That was interesting, I typed 'god', and without thinking went back and changed it to 'God'. Pause. Think. Why? Because *I* write 'god', but I was saying where I think *you* belive they come from, and I think you believe they come from a capital 'G', grin)
In the context of your usage, "God" is a proper noun; therefore, the rules of grammar demand the word be capitalized. Why do you instinctively not capitalize it?
At it's best, religion can promote greater understanding, but
Here you indict yourself of the same prejudice you accused the parent poster of. While you correctly pointed out that one does not have to believe in God to be moral, you go on to imply that belief in God generates more immorality than otherwise. But this is obviously error. You fail to give merit to the immeasurable contributions to society given by not only religious organizations, but their followers as well. In addition, you ignore that the most immoral acts in history have been committed by specifically atheistic secular authorities in far greater number than those done in the name of God. Not so incidentally, the worst of these attempt to motivate conflict amongst and between uneducated religious in order to achieve their own selfish desires.
To the contrary, religion appeals to common sense in part because it holds to moral principles that contain value proven over time.
I'd also like to point of one of the most severely flawed pieces of "popular morality", the golden rule - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
A polar bear would no more wish you to place him on a tropical beach than you would wish the polar bear to place you in the arctic ocean.
The golden rule is essentially a summary of a set of Christian moral commands. When groups of people attempt to live according to the entire code of morality, they don't find themselves in conflict. This could be said of most any religion based on God since for the most part, they teach the same morality. Most problems arise between groups who hold fundamentally different beliefs, or between people who mis-understand or distort their faith.
A better revision would be:
Do unto others as others would reasonably have you do unto them.
So if the norm of a particular culture accepts that it is OK to engage in selfish pursuits as it is expected that others will naturally attempt to exploit you, would you consider it OK to continue the cycle? There are entire governments, cultures, and organizations that act according to your revisionist rule, and I for one would not wish to participate in or be subject to them.
What if you want to archive your back-ups? I was very surprised to learn that CD-R's are really only reliable for 6-10 years (IAW the company I work for). I've read that memory sticks, compact flash, and other solid state storage devices are rated for 10 years. I don't know about hard drives. Tape just seems too slow and unwieldy.
I think the ideal media would be small like a floppy and dense enough to hold maybe 20 GB of data. The data should be reliable for at least 100 years without requiring refreshment. It shouldn't take more than an hour to fill it up. I should be able to plug the reader/writer into my comp via USB 2, and it should be small and portable.
Actually there are many good reasons to avoid pornography. These are just some that come to mind:
- It's addictive and habit forming. Not everyone has a problem with it but many do.
- People who look at pornography on their computers are often led to magazines, videos, and eventually strip clubs.
- Once it gets on your computer, it's hard to get rid of. It's a portal to spamville, and neverending pop-up ads.
- It's a non-productive habit; it voraciously consumes both time and money.
- It leads to self gratification and laziness.
- People who work in this business have to put up with the worst of what society has to offer, and they don't like it.
- One that most slashgeeks don't understand: girls won't appreciate their boyfriends drooling over other naked women.
- It's really contrary to healthy family values.
Have I missed any?
I don't want to hurt anyone's sensibilities, but history is filled with instances of the Christian church condemning the scientific world and trying to regulate what the scientists say.
To say that Christian history is "filled with instances" is I think a bit misleading. The Church recognizes that it serves a different role than science and so does not regulate science except to promote what is commonly thought to be scientifically true. There have been scientific discoveries and theories built upon them that have thrown *everyone* for a loop.
I am interested in knowing the views of all you calm people out there as to why evolution is so vigorously attacked by America's religious Christians alone and not so much by other religions/countries?
What makes you think such people are really Christians?
If there are zany creationists reading this out there, please do feel free to email me links or give me better arguments via email. I've had this invitation open for years, but no one has given me anything other than b.s. so far.
Since you asked for a *zany* creationists reply...
For the same reason God can't be proven to exist, I don't think that creationism can be proven true; at least not through purely scientific means. Though I do believe that one can infer truth about creationism from scientific evidence stemming from the nature of evolution itself. Go here and look at the questions posed at the bottom of the page.
Over a historically very short period -- just 40 million years -- the basic forms of just about all of life in existence evolved. I think it is interesting to note that the first story of creation as told in the book of Genesis gives a fairly accurate account of the order in which life evolved as determined through science. Now I don't know how much people knew about the Cambrian period almost 2000 years ago, but the correlation is interesting. Genetically speaking, it's entirely possible that God had it all planned out before the Cambrian period even began, or even before the world was created. The triggers that have shaped and continue to shape our evolution could have been placed already and we just haven't discovered them yet. Ever see 2001: A Space Odyssey? Remember how each time the monolith is discovered, life evolves in some significant fashion? Isn't it funny how each generation tends to rediscover the monolith in its own way and time?
Scientists and computer programmer types generally have a hard time accepting the existence of God and thus creationism. I think this results from a tendency to develop knowledge from that which is directly observable. Taken to the extreme, as was the case for Einstein, they can come to knowledge of God as the force behind the design of the universe. This is a result of the fact that existence itself is so complex and yet there is order to it.
I believe that any and all possible paths we have or can travel have been plowed already. However, it is one thing to simply shine a light in front of yourself as you walk and completely another to look back over where you have traveled and think "why?" I think it is here that we can best determine where we might be going.
To address your wicked and perverse influence; these things matter to God. God has a long and reliable history of dispensing justice.
Well, for married couples the Church teaches that sex be oriented towards the purposes of procreation and forming unity. As I read it, this means that sex outside of procreation is permitted only if it is necessary for maintaining the health of the marriage; the emphasis being on refraining if you can. Even so, natural family planning methods without contraceptives are 98% effective; it's not asking much really. Besides, why make love using a condom? Plus there is something to be said for anticipation.
I'm pretty sure the Church would condemn female circumcision as an unnatural and unhealthy act.
Therefore, I believe these criticisms of the Church are invalid.
Human Papillomavirus was the one I was thinking about. Saw it on TV a couple weeks ago. It was a real eye opener for me since I had always thought that they were effective against the spread of disease. Guess that shows why it's important to follow the Church as you can't always get good info from other sources. Thanks for the posting the links!
Well, all of this is Old Testament stuff. As Christians, we live under the New Testament covenant established by Christ. It seems to me that the new law is much simpler than the laws established before Christ.
While I'd agree that some of the actions God took seem rash, I don't think it is wise to pass judgment on actions God takes in general. I really don't know much about the peoples of Old Testament times, but it seems to me they were fairly simple and thus more suitable to following cut and dry rules. I think punishment was dealt to preserve a better future for those who did follow God's rules. Since God was the Creator, he had a unique ultra-complex understanding of what was good for the people and what was destructive. Thus obedience to God was very important; for our own sakes. I don't think God destroyed anybody without giving them a chance to repent. I also tend to think that all who died apart from God before Christ were given a chance to enter Heaven through Christ after his death.
From Christ we get clear council and the benefit of the Holy Spirit, which perhaps only a handful of people possessed in Old Testament times. The Holy Spirit councils primarily through the Church, but the basic laws remain the same since we are in fact still the same physical and spiritual creatures by nature, and live in the same world of God's creation.
I find a lot of Catholic belief particularly offensive, such as their medieval attitudes towards science...
...their anti-contraceptive stance...
...and their denial of female reproductive rights.
Don't understand what you are talking about here. The Church is well aware of the state of the art in technology, and they do not judge the validity of scientific claims.
This is true, but for good reason. Contraceptives are not entirely effective. Becoming pregnant affects persons for the rest of their lives. There is at least one sexually transmitted disease that contraceptives are entirely ineffective at preventing.
I'm Catholic and I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this. Catholic couples are *encouraged* by the Church to have and raise children. This is the ultimate goal of a marriage relationship.
I was coerced into studying the Bible when I was a child, but I did study it. Their god loves recommending murder, torture, rape, etc.
Evidently those who "coerced" you into studing the Bible never bothered teaching you about the 10 commandments, and never let you read the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Yes, on formal occasions he also makes more restrained statements recommending tolerance.
Tolerance of what? Tolerance of evil is not a Christian virtue. Christians are called to council against evil and lead by example. This for the greater benefit of all.
So I consider the catholic church to be a much worse offender than the web sites, this without even being moved to find out what the web sites said.
This attitude is what keeps you from understanding Christ and the Catholic Church. If you make no effort to understand why people believe as they do, not only will you continue in error, you will likely lead others into error as well. If you want to know what the Church teaches about God, participate. You are doing yourself injustice if you accept anybody else's opinion on the matter. If after learning from the Church, you still do not agree, at least you will have some ground to stand on when you criticize.
While I generally agree with this, I think it depends on the medium. I don't see why the local paper would need to focus on high dollar customers; they should be trying to reach the broadest market. It seems to me that this would mean factual reporting on stories of general interest. I say this, but still I see a lot of sensationalistic crap in our papers, so I don't subscribe. Same for CNN or similar TV media, I don't watch them much either, what's the point? I think there is something more at work here than simplistic greed. Why don't we see sensationalistic reporting on interesting or uplifting stories rather than depressing angles on uninteresting stories? Our media is more effective at spreading terror than Al Qaeda. My own opinion is it has more to do with bad management influenced by warped values.
Cable channels, newspapers and newsmagazines cater to wealthy people -- no matter what color -- because those are the consumers advertisers want to reach.
While this does make sense, I'd be interested to see figures on revenue generated from readership/viewers as compared to sponsors/advertisers though. As a rule of thumb: more facts, less commentary. Thus I suppose I could rate your commentary as trolling; you make your own point. Seriously, I suspect you wouldn't get heckled so much if you supported your opinions with facts.
Even so-called serious media like the New York Times and Washington Post are market-driven, focused increasingly on high-end consumer products spawned by digital technology...
I couldn't believe the amount of coverage that that "tilt and run vehicle" got in the media. It might have been amusing to watch Paula Zahn scoot around the sidewalk on one of these things, but my gosh, several days in a row? From how many different sources? From this, Slashdot was not immune. Not only was this thing probably uninteresting to most people, it's not even mass marketable. There are more interesting and important thing to report on like: Methinks there is more to it then greed...
The only mystery is how long it will take the media -- and more importantly, the public -- to understand and acknowledge the reality of their own new, intensely corporate, value system.
Well it's not my value system, and it never was. It's a shame really that mass media is in such sad shape -- it could be a force for far greater good.
So what if the govt. does something I don't like and I don't feel like saying the pledge, does that mean nobody else should be able to say the pledge? Perhaps the entire pledge should be done away with.