Faith leads to evil.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by westprog

I wouldn't claim such a thing wasn't mandated by scripture - because I can well imagine someone could interpret the sections of the New Testament dealing with transubstantiation and find a justification for cannibalism there.

Dammit and there was me trying to think of something abhorrent that couldn't be supported by scripture.

Quote:

Because their Christian beliefs incorporate their moral beliefs. They did not consider their moral judgement as seperate from their Christianity.

So beliefs that a christian holds are christian beliefs? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

The idea that a Christian decides how to feel about a particular issue by poring through the bible is more Atheist Fundamentalism. The Christians who opposed slavery didn't need to go much further than "Love your neighbour as yourself".

I didn't say christians have to consult the Bible to come to a decision on something, only if they want to come to it from a christian perspective.

Also "love your neighbor" means love your neighbor, not love your property.

Quote:

It's fair comment when the hypocrisy of Christian slave-owners is pointed out. I won't try to pretend that they weren't somehow real Christians. But the abolitionist movement was dominated by Christians acting according to their Christian principles.

What hypocrisy?

[thaiboxerken]

Abolishment of slavery is not a christian principle. The bible even supports slavery and prescribes how to treat slaves. The abolishment of slavery is a secular value. It did not come from religion, but from reason and free thought.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Abolishment of slavery is not a christian principle. The bible even supports slavery and prescribes how to treat slaves.

In the Old Testament, yes. This is not a New Testament teaching as far as I'm aware.

Quote:

The abolishment of slavery is a secular value. It did not come from religion, but from reason and free thought.

This is untrue. At least in the US, the concept of all men (and women) being granted inalienable rights was both secular and religious. Most of the religious at the time such concepts first entered the arena were Christians. A good number of abolitionists were die-hard, even fundamental Christians, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who did not claim some Christian religious affiliation, and who did not use those "Christian values" as part of their platform against slavery. John Brown, for example, originally trained to be a minister. Abby Kelley and Benjamin Lundy were Quakers. The list can go on and be quite lengthy.

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Couldn't you imagine an atheist king who believed that the plebs needed religion to survive?

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." -- Aristotle, Politics

"I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did." President George W. Bush, Sharm el-Sheikh, August 2003

But I think the point being made was that those states founded on a system that included and espoused atheism tended to repress other religions as a matter of course. This does not mean that all systems that include atheism would do this, but that the historical course has shown this more often than not.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

In the Old Testament, yes. This is not a New Testament teaching as far as I'm aware.

Was it ever condemned in the New Testament?

Quote:

This is untrue. At least in the US, the concept of all men (and women) being granted inalienable rights was both secular and religious.

What religion was that?

[GreyICE]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Suffering is, by definition, unpleasant. It is logical to minimize suffering.

I give you a shot. You spend 90 minutes deliriously happy, then die, ensuring you never suffer again. I have moved your lifetime suffering to a dead minimum.

Similarly, I stop an Olympic athlete from working out, because he is frequently in pain after a long training session.

I am doing good, in a logical manner.

I find the minimization of suffering a rather pathetic goal.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

Was it ever condemned in the New Testament?

No, it never condemns slavery, although 1 Corinthians 7:23 does make a pronouncement against becoming "slaves of men". The New Testament does not "support" or "prescribe how to treat slaves" either.

Quote:

What religion was that?

Ummm, I addressed this if you'll read further along. If anything there didn't make sense or seemed erroneous, please feel free to question.

[Tailgater]

Originally Posted by articulett

And what "evil" has that lead to again?

If my kids need food and I come over to your house and kill you for your food, I would say that is evil based on human instinct of self-preservation. It's something you will see worldwide as the food crisis begins in smaller countries.

ETA: poor not small

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Tailgater

If my kids need food and I come over to your house and kill you for your food, I would say that is evil based on human instinct of self-preservation. It's something you will see worldwide as the food crisis begins in smaller countries.

ETA: poor not small

Look at the world as a whole and you could say that it's happening right now.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

In the Old Testament, yes. This is not a New Testament teaching as far as I'm aware.

The NT condones the laws of the OT.

Quote:

This is untrue. At least in the US, the concept of all men (and women) being granted inalienable rights was both secular and religious.

Wrong. The concept of equality is not Christian. It is a secular value that, thankfully, many christians finally accepted, but it did not originate within christianity. The bible says nothing about equality and, in fact, condones the idea of people being more or "better" than others.

Quote:

A good number of abolitionists were die-hard, even fundamental Christians, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many who did not claim some Christian religious affiliation, and who did not use those "Christian values" as part of their platform against slavery. John Brown, for example, originally trained to be a minister. Abby Kelley and Benjamin Lundy were Quakers. The list can go on and be quite lengthy.

They were all mistaken to call equality a christian value. I'm glad christians are happy to incorporate and water down their religion with good secular values, but please don't attribute such great concepts to christianity. It's simply a lie. Freedom, equality and tolerance are secular values that transcend any religious belief and originated from reason and empathy, not religion.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

So beliefs that a christian holds are christian beliefs? Is that what you're saying?

Quote:

I didn't say christians have to consult the Bible to come to a decision on something, only if they want to come to it from a christian perspective.

Also "love your neighbor" means love your neighbor, not love your property.

There's a reason they're called "Christians", not "Biblers".

The message of the NT is simple enough. Christ was asked what the essence of his message was, and he said it. The atheists seem to be upset when Christians go by this and don't go poring through Leviticus for something appalling.

Quote:

What hypocrisy?

The slave owners didn't love their neighbour. And yes, Christ did tell them who their neighbour was. They did what the Atheist Fundies like in a Christian - delve into scripture to find the bits that suited them. Unfortunately there were others, as detailed on this thread, who took the fundamental teaching seriously and acted on it.

[Nosaj]

westprog,

Originally Posted by westprog

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that faith - religious faith - is wrong. That a reasonable person must agree that Jesus, Buddha and Allah can all be classed with IPU and FSM as inherently absurd ... So what's the conclusion? Well, I certainly don't think that in a world where religious fanatics fly planes into buildings killing thousands of people, that religion is a panacea. But obviously, neither is atheism. But maybe, just maybe, tolerance is. Acceptance that while I like my beliefs, the other guy should be considered as if his beliefs were of equal value. Or at least of some value.

I do not think that faith in and of itself is evil, I see it more as a motivating factor; but I do think that misguided faith or faith without reason can be an unskillful motivating factor when it comes to our actions, i.e., acts leading to harmful results. People who kill thousands of other innocent people out of faith is certainly one example of how I think faith can be an unskillful motivating factor. Nevertheless, is faith always going to lead to such behavior, is it all the same? On the issue of faith in Buddhism, for example, while there is certainly room for skepticism toward matters of faith, there is also a limit to that skepticism. The Buddha often stated that faith in a teacher is what leads one to learn from that teacher, to put their teachings to the test to see what results they will bring; and the only valid basis for faith is the instruction that, when followed, brings about the end of one's own mental defilements (DN 11).

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, "The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith ... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice" (Faith in Awakening). In other words, one must have at least a modicum of faith that an end to suffering is possible, otherwise one will not bother working toward that goal.

One must also understand what faith means in this context. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as "confidence," "conviction," or "faith." More specifically, it is a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that is rooted in understanding as well as what we would conventionally refer to as faith in the West, i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. To give an example, for one to truly take refuge in the Buddha (as a teacher), one has to take his awakening on faith until they too have achieved that particular goal. Until then, they have no way of verifying the experience of awakening until they have experienced it for themselves. Therefore, while saddha by itself is not a sufficient condition for arriving at the end of suffering, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice. The question is, does this type of faith lead to unskillful or negative behavior?

Biased as I am, for me the answer is no. For one reason, taking the doctrine of kamma on faith, as a working hypothesis, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening, "...instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate? If, on the other hand, you were to believe in any of the alternatives — such as a doctrine of an impersonal fate or a deity who determined the course of your pleasure and pain, or a doctrine that all things were coincidental and without cause — what would those beliefs lead you to do? Would they allow you to put an end to suffering through your own efforts? Would they allow any purpose for knowledge at all?"

To put it another way, if I ask a person who I feel to be wise, which should be determined by careful observation and analysis of their words and deeds per AN 4.192, "What when I do it will be for my long-term welfare and happiness," and their answer leads me to place faith in putting forth the effort to abstain from killing, abstain from stealing, abstain from lying, abstain from sexual misconduct, abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness; to cultvating wholesome mental states (e.g. compassion, equanimity, etc.) and abandoning unwholesome mental states (e.g., greed, hatred, etc.); to developing alertness, mindfulness, and wisdom through various forms of meditation, will this type of faith lead to unskillful actions that harm myself or others? In most cases, if the effort is genuine, the answer is no. Therefore, in a pragmatic sense, faith is not inherently detrimental to oneself or society.

None of this can prove that such actions are universal moral laws, and therefore ultimately valid in all circumstances, but it does go to show that the answer to whether faith is "evil" is relative as opposed to absolute. If a person believes that violence is "evil," for example, then faith in the idea that actions based upon harmlessness and non-violence such as those found in Buddhism and Jainism can be seen as being "good" if they lead to non-violent actions. Then there are the moral grey areas such as when we ask whether violence is sometimes necessary, e.g., in WW II when violence was perhaps the only way to end the Nazi death camps; and our faith in the right answer determines our actions. One can reason that violence in cases such as these is ethically acceptable, but even that view depends on faith in a certain set of assumptions about things such as ethics, morality, the intrinsic value of human life, etc.

As for how to deal with the issue of faith in a broader context, there is no simple solution. Matters of faith can be complex, and as much as certain people dislike the idea of faith, there is little that one can do to prevent another from having faith in something. I think that one very important tool is education; I think that if more people around the world had access to quality education, and were taught critical thinking skills, then there would be less reliance on faith. But even this is not a foolproof solution seeing as how many of the 9/11 hijackers well educated. I definitely agree with Sam Harris that having an open discourse about these matters is another step in the right direction; but in the end, I think that people need to start taking an honest look at their beliefs and what their beliefs motivate them to do. I think that this kind of self-awareness can eventually dispel a lot of the harm that faith can engender.

Jason

[Nosaj]

Double post.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The NT condones the laws of the OT.

As this is not my understanding, please provide a citation from the Bible that makes this statement.

Quote:

Wrong. The concept of equality is not Christian. It is a secular value that, thankfully, many christians finally accepted, but it did not originate within christianity. The bible says nothing about equality and, in fact, condones the idea of people being more or "better" than others.

Wrong:

"But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." 1 Corinthians 12: 24-26 [emphasis added]

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'" 2 Corinthians 8: 13-15 [emphasis added]

I can provide more, if so required.

Quote:

Freedom, equality and tolerance are secular values that transcend any religious belief and originated from reason and empathy, not religion.

While I agree with the former part of this statement, and even applaud it, I disagree with the latter. There is no single origin for such concepts as freedom and equality. They did not spring, fully-formed from the forehead of secularists lacking input from any other source; social, cultural, religious or otherwise.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a reason they're called "Christians", not "Biblers".

The message of the NT is simple enough. Christ was asked what the essence of his message was, and he said it. The atheists seem to be upset when Christians go by this and don't go poring through Leviticus for something appalling.

And part of Jesus's message was that the laws of the Old Testament were to be upheld. What annoys atheists is the inconsistancy christians show even when it comes to following the teachings of Jesus.

Quote:

The slave owners didn't love their neighbour. And yes, Christ did tell them who their neighbour was. They did what the Atheist Fundies like in a Christian - delve into scripture to find the bits that suited them. Unfortunately there were others, as detailed on this thread, who took the fundamental teaching seriously and acted on it.

Er, isn't that exactly what they, and you are doing? You're delving into scripture and picking only the nice bits.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

As this is not my understanding, please provide a citation from the Bible that makes this statement.

How about it lego form? http://www.thebricktestament.com/the...s/mt05_17.html

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

The New Testament does not "support" or "prescribe how to treat slaves" either.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epi.../1tm06_01.html

[ParanoidAndroid]

Seneca the Younger said it well:

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Religion is nothing more than a tool with powerful potential. Whenever the tool is wielded (particularly by the powerful), tolerance mixed with plenty of vigilance and a readiness to act when it’s employed abusively seems the prudent response.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

While I agree with the former part of this statement, and even applaud it, I disagree with the latter. There is no single origin for such concepts as freedom and equality. They did not spring, fully-formed from the forehead of secularists lacking input from any other source; social, cultural, religious or otherwise.

I think you misunderstand what a secular value is. A secular value is not one that was invented or thought up by secularists. It is a value that is shared by many, despite what their religions say. Secular values formed, not because of faith, but because people decided that these values or ideas were a bit better. Many, if not all, of the values shared in the free world today didn't come from a bible, but from discussion and debate, which is a form of reasoning and logic.

[KingMerv00]

Originally Posted by GreyICE

I give you a shot. You spend 90 minutes deliriously happy, then die, ensuring you never suffer again. I have moved your lifetime suffering to a dead minimum.

Similarly, I stop an Olympic athlete from working out, because he is frequently in pain after a long training session.

I am doing good, in a logical manner.

I find the minimization of suffering a rather pathetic goal.

I'm having a rotten day. I'll respond some other time.

I suspect you have an idea how I will respond though.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epi.../1tm06_01.html

Why do atheists always seem to know more about what the Bible says than its supposed adherents do? This never ceases to amaze me.

[thaiboxerken]

He can't even use the "it's the old testament" excuse. I'm sure some apologetic crap will surface though. I predict "servants are not slaves" and "those verses are taken out of context."

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by westprog

Assuming perfect reason, and the same assumptions, and putting aside issues of language and comprehension, starting with the same fundamental principles it should be possible to derive the same moral code. Naturally this will never happen.

Well, there's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Why would it not be possible for two people to derive the same moral code? Do you have a rational basis for saying such a thing, or are you merely arguing from incredulity?

Originally Posted by westprog

However, the principle on which a moral system is founded is typically not something which can be determined as faulty or sound. If the fundamental principle is "Increase human happiness" then it's not possible to use reason to determine whether that is a correct premise or not.

I wouldn't necessarily say 'typically' - there are plently of moral systems out there that have as their base values the worship of a human, or even an entity that does not appear to exist!

However, there are also a number of values that are not faulty on which moral systems can be based.

Originally Posted by westprog

But a large number of systems have been based on such a view, explicitly or implicitly. Admittedly they tend not to turn out so well.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/10/19/ederic.php

Well, that's part of the point, isn't it? The other part is that their moral system is unjustified (in the sense that moral systems can be justified by not having a poor foundation).

[articulett]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I'm having a rotten day. I'll respond some other time.

I suspect you have an idea how I will respond though.

I'm sorry you are having a rotten day.

I can respond-- we don't randomly kill people for a lot of reasons... mostly we don't care too. Many of us are for euthanasia, but we would suffer legal consequences if we enabled the death of a terminally ill loved one. Most of us have no desire to kill others for any reason; I've sure never wanted to KILL someone. But even if we logically put someone out of their misery (and we do for our pets)... we know that is a right that we want to make for ourselves and our loved ones-- we wouldn't take that right away from someone else or destroy their loved ones by doing so. People who ask such inane questions like Grey_ice sound so creepy and immoral to me-- like they would kill without whatever it is they have keeping them from doing so. Humans seemed to do pretty well for themselves just evolving basic social reciprocity which served for eons before anyone made any holy book. We are their ancestors. We carry their social influences in our genes.

Atheists... including atheists since childhood seem to behave as morally or more morally than their indoctrinated counterparts... however, the indoctrinated to "believe" they are more moral just as they "believe" that they got their morality form some god.

If god is supposed to help people get along better socially-- it isn't working:

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

And let's not forget the pedophiliac clergy... whom even threats of hells don't seem to control.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Yes, but... it is getting to the point that "outspoken Christian on the Internet" is almost a synonym for "bigoted liar." It is weird, since real-life Christians don't follow that pattern nearly as closely. When someone starts a thread here defending theism, however, I'd bet you dollars to donuts that they'll be lying by page 2.

and fighting straw man version of something the atheist said, call the atheist a liar, play the offended card, and criticize others with criticisms that so much more clearly apply to him or herself. Oh yeah... and the loaded tangential questions that they don't really want answered.

[I Ratant]

"We are their ancestors. We carry their social influences in our genes."
.
"Descendants" please...
And social influences are learned (at Mommy's knee), not transmitted thru the genes, although many animal species do exhibit altruistic behavior, it's probably learned as well.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

"But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it." 1 Corinthians 12: 24-26 [emphasis added]

That passage, when read in context, appears to refer to the members of the Church, not humankind in general. Moreover, it appears (once again) to condone slavery.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:13 [emphasis added]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'" 2 Corinthians 8: 13-15 [emphasis added]

Er...just because a passage talks about 'equality' doesn't mean that it's talking about slavery. The equality in this passage appears to be referring to the sharing of goods (such as crops) - not equality in people.

Feel free to try again though.

[dglas]

It seems to me that Westprog is making a rather serious assumption that is without basis. He rightly points out that logical analysis doesn't begin until one identifies premises and conclusions (or more to his point) axioms and derivations from the axioms. According to him, if I understand correctly, to develop of logic of a "moral" system, we must first posit axiomatic "principles" and then use logic afterwards to determine the internal consistency of the derivations from those axiomatic "principles." Quite so.

However, how one views those axioms (however one wants to describe them) is rather important. It is, by no stretch of the imagination, necessary to believe-in in the faith manner, internalize (or however else one wishes to characterize this function), or otherwise hold as True any axiom, even if we depict them as moral principles. One can, I think, perfectly coherently view the axioms as conditional and one can choose not to hold them as matters of faith. And this is where Westprog, and faith, goes awry.

Now, interestingly enough, if we look at the "principles" or axioms as conditional on some desired result then we can then do away with normative language and move towards verifiability and, in this manner, we can, not span, but render uninteresting the is-ought barrier. In such a way of seeing things, we can replace words like "ought" and "should" with "must." If we value X then we must prohibit Y or make Z an obligation. Sometimes whether something is a matter of verifiability or not is in how one phrases the question...

Now Westprog, and possibly others, may claim that I've simply created an additional step in that now the values are listed as first principles, but the critical difference, again, is not in the fact that we posit axioms, but in the manner in which we view them. it is a radically different thing to say "I value this" as opposed to "This is valuable." Do we view them as practical matters or do we view them as Truths(tm)? This very simple, but profound difference, can significantly alter the frame of reference and change the character of the whole endeavor.

Faith is maladaptive precisely because matters of faith are not held as conditional - they are held as Truths or absolute.

It takes a moral relativist to say that murder is not Wrong, but it takes a moral absolutist to say that murder is Right. This is another way of high-lighting the difference between positing as conditional and holding as a matter of faith. However, with a more sophisticated understanding of morality as a social function, as opposed to some kind of absolute Truth(tm), it is quite possible to speak of morality without speaking of Right or Wrong, Good or Evil.

To the absolutist, this makes morality slippery and difficult to understand as their vision of "moral." To the absolutist this is a reason to condemn lack of faith in moral principles as non-moral. Interestingly enough, we do have GreyICE claim that a non-faith-based principles of morality are not morality as he or she and/or most others understand it. I think GreyICE is correct about this, but does this indicate that we must work within the framework of the current understanding, even if widespread, or that we need a different understanding?

In the non-absolutist, however, this indicates a different approach to understanding of morality - one based more on reliance on negotiation of our understanding of what it is to be moral. It isn't "slippery" because it is subject to revision; it is adaptive to changing circumstances. This is not to say that non-absolutists must go this route, but only that it is possible. Functions fo moral language can still be accounted for, if we feel it is necessary to do so: Universalizability may expressed in the scope and breadth of application of the axiom set. Prescriptivity can be developed as an understanding of morality as a negotiated realm of reasonable expectations.

However, and this is where it gets interesting, what are we to say of people who posit morality as a matter of faith (again, believe-in or internalize the principles as Truth or absolute), but who also posit that they have direct access to moral Truths by some function of their private internal realms - conscience, and who, at the same time, treat conscience as sacrosanct? Now, here's an entirely other scenario which can, and often does, have catastrophic results, because these folks hold on faith that their Truths are absolute while at the same time deriving them from knowledge with no external referents.

Somewhere we developed this bizarre idea that conscience leads to understanding of moral Truth. What it actually does is remove the understanding of morality from the public realm and places it firmly in the realm of the entirely private, non-verifiable and non-refutable and also, non-negotiable realm. Sometimes they don't even realize what they are doing. A prime example is the person who claims that Biblical content represents moral Truth, but who also contradict that content at will, still believing they are holding to absolute Truth. Interesting perspective, that.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

How about it lego form? http://www.thebricktestament.com/the...s/mt05_17.html

Nice try. Unfortunately, this is taking what Jesus was saying out of context, and not looking at the whole chapter of Matthew. He was saying that he wasn't doing away with the old laws, but rather that the old laws have been fulfilled, that they had done what needed to be done, and their task was now complete (it can be argued that this shows an inconsistency on God's part, but that's a different thread). Then Jesus goes on to provide the new message, which includes his "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) and his "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44).

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

http://www.thebricktestament.com/epi.../1tm06_01.html

Ummm, so where's all this condoning of slavery and how to treat slaves as prescribed by the New Testament? I don't see it in this citation. Do you have another you'd like to try?

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think you misunderstand what a secular value is. [snip]

Not at all. I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. I’ll repeat for you, and try to be a little plain.

You claimed that “The abolishment of slavery is a secular value. It did not come from religion, but from reason and free thought.” This is patently false as I’ve already shown. I have not claimed that there was not secular thought involved in the concept of the abolishment of slavery, rather that it did not originate solely from a secular field. The concept of abolition was one that came from many different areas, some of them secular, some of them religious. Most of the abolitionists in the United States were, in varying degrees, religious folk. Of them, many used the Bible as a means to support their stance on an abhorrent practice. I hope that’s more clear to you now.

Originally Posted by volatile

Why do atheists always seem to know more about what the Bible says than its supposed adherents do? This never ceases to amaze me.

If this is aimed at me it’s an erroneous assumption that you’re making. But thanks for playing!

If you’re follow up is then why am I taking this stance, it’s because I don’t like to see erroneous information being espoused as facts.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

He can't even use the "it's the old testament" excuse. I'm sure some apologetic crap will surface though. I predict "servants are not slaves" and "those verses are taken out of context."

And you’d be wrong as well. The citations Civilized Worm provided were from the New Testament, unless Matthew and Timothy somehow got moved in your version. While there is some cross over use between the terms slaves and servants, it is just that: cross over use. The two are used reasonably synonymously in the Bible, and that’s a dead end argument; or “apologetic crap” as you put it. The first verse was taken out of context, though I’ll admit it’s a confusing verse to read. The second citation doesn’t address anything that we’re discussing in this argument. But thank you also for playing!

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

That passage, when read in context, appears to refer to the members of the Church, not humankind in general. Moreover, it appears (once again) to condone slavery.

True enough, it is aimed at the followers of Jesus (not certain what church you’re referring, since they still considered themselves as part of the Jewish tradition, but for simplicity, we can let that lie). But that doesn't change the fact that the concept of equality (albeit under God) was being promoted by the Bible. But I'm not seeing any condoning of slavery by this passage or anywhere else in the New Testament. I suppose we could make the argument that

Quote:

Er...just because a passage talks about 'equality' doesn't mean that it's talking about slavery. The equality in this passage appears to be referring to the sharing of goods (such as crops) - not equality in people.

Feel free to try again though.

Sorry, looks like you’re confused here. I was answering thaiboxerken’s erroneous claim that the equality is not a Christian concept. This particular part of the argument didn’t necessarily have to do with slavery, besides which I’ve already stated that the New Testament doesn’t condemn slavery. Unfortunate, but there it is.

Still, in the matter of equality, I can provide additional citations in this regard:

Galatians 3:28
Luke 4:18
Ephesians 6:8
Matthew 20: 11-13

Shew, that was a lot work! Thanks for putting me to the task, guys. This is a lot of fun.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Nice try. Unfortunately, this is taking what Jesus was saying out of context, and not looking at the whole chapter of Matthew. He was saying that he wasn't doing away with the old laws, but rather that the old laws have been fulfilled, that they had done what needed to be done, and their task was now complete (it can be argued that this shows an inconsistency on God's part, but that's a different thread). Then Jesus goes on to provide the new message, which includes his "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39) and his "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44).

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Seems pretty clear from that that the law still stands. (Although strangely enough it seems you can break them and still get in to heaven, you just have to suffer the punishment of being called "least")

Quote:

Ummm, so where's is the condoning of slavery and how to treat slaves as prescribed by the New Testament?

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

Seems pretty clear from that that the law still stands. (Although strangely enough it seems you can break them and still get in to heaven, you just have to suffer the punishment of being called "least")

Yeah, it's a pretty confusing passage, as I said. So no fault of yours that you didn't get it. Jesus here is applying the law to himself, and, as I said, he's claiming it is "fulfilled" and thus no longer necessary, which is why he then goes on to provide new laws.

Quote:

Sorry if I was unclear. The argument was that the New Testament supports and condones slavery. This quote doesn't reflect support or condoning slavery.

[articulett]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

"We are their ancestors. We carry their social influences in our genes."
.
"Descendants" please...
And social influences are learned (at Mommy's knee), not transmitted thru the genes, although many animal species do exhibit altruistic behavior, it's probably learned as well.

I knew that.

Damn, I hate when I do that. And I have a Masters in Genetics.

Brain Fart.

Thanks for the correction.

(I blame your maddening avatar.)

ETA: RR--the new testament says it supports everything in the old testament... it doesn't say that the new rules alter the old ones... they just build upon them. If slavery was okay in the old testament, it didn't suddenly become "wrong" in the new.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Civilized Worm

You're delving into scripture and picking only the nice bits.

Which is bad how? What is the sense in picking out the stupid and malevolent parts of religious belief? What's the point in ignoring useful insights and wisdom?

Do people who apply Newton's laws of motion have to believe in astrology?

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Yeah, it's a pretty confusing passage, as I said. So no fault of yours that you didn't get it. Jesus here is applying the law to himself, and, as I said, he's claiming it is "fulfilled" and thus no longer necessary, which is why he then goes on to provide new laws.

He said they wouldn't all be fulfilled until "heaven and earth pass" and people must still obey them unless they want to be "least" in heaven.

Quote:

Sorry if I was unclear. The argument was that the New Testament supports and condones slavery. This quote doesn't reflect support or condoning slavery.

In what way is "Slaves must be obedient to their masters in everything, and do what is wanted without argument" NOT supporting slavery?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Yeah, it's a pretty confusing passage, as I said. So no fault of yours that you didn't get it. Jesus here is applying the law to himself, and, as I said, he's claiming it is "fulfilled" and thus no longer necessary, which is why he then goes on to provide new laws.

There's a more basic point here as well. There seems to be outrage from atheists that Christians fail to follow the authorised athiest interpretation of the bible, and insist on accepting their own view, or that of other Christian believers. Naturally the kind of Christian who lives in an armed compound in Utah and shoots gays is more acceptable to the atheists. At least he knows what he believes.

The reason that Christians don't take their message from Atheist bible scholars is that the fundamental Christian message is quite simple, really. It's also difficult to actually practice.

[A Christian Sceptic]

For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a more basic point here as well. There seems to be outrage from atheists that Christians fail to follow the authorised athiest interpretation of the bible, and insist on accepting their own view, or that of other Christian believers. Naturally the kind of Christian who lives in an armed compound in Utah and shoots gays is more acceptable to the atheists. At least he knows what he believes.

Our "outrage" (it's more incredulity, really) stems from the fact that whilst you profess to be "Christians", and certainly do take at least some parts of the Bible literally (otherwise, you're no kind of Christian at all), you decide that other bits aren't valid, aren't valid any more, or were metaphorical all along, all on an ad-hoc and totally arbitrary basis depending on cultural and / or personal mores. You also even pretend that the bits you find abhorrent from a personal standpoint (the gang-rapes, genocides, murders, lies and slavery) don't even mean what they explicitly say. The mental gymnastics your particular breed of Christian has to go through just leaves us atheists pretty dumbstruck. It's all so absurd from this side of the fence.

That's why we're confused. Why claim to be a Christian of you don't even believe in your own Scripture? Why believe in one thing the Bible says as absolute truth but dismiss passages from the same book as metaphor? Why even be a Christian, if your basic values are utterly opposed to the very Book you claim to take as your moral and metaphysical guide?

I think Dawkins makes a similar point in Delusion. Woolly Christians are just weird.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which is bad how? What is the sense in picking out the stupid and malevolent parts of religious belief? What's the point in ignoring useful insights and wisdom?

Do people who apply Newton's laws of motion have to believe in astrology?

It's not bad at all, it's good. It shows you have an innate sense of morality that you then apply to biblical teaching and take only what you already know to be good. You don't need the Bible to tell you how to be moral any more than I do.

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a more basic point here as well. There seems to be outrage from atheists that Christians fail to follow the authorised athiest interpretation of the bible, and insist on accepting their own view, or that of other Christian believers. Naturally the kind of Christian who lives in an armed compound in Utah and shoots gays is more acceptable to the atheists. At least he knows what he believes.

Of course atheists don't want you to be fundamentalists, we much prefer moderate religious people who tolerate homosexuality, accept scientific findings and so forth. What I'm trying to get across is that sensible people like yourself find much of the Bible to be as absurd and wicked as we do.

You are right in one sense that we find it slightly less frustrating to debate a believer who is clear and upfront about what they believe, but they're certainly not the kind of believer we want to share a planet with.

[meg]

Originally Posted by westprog

There's a more basic point here as well. There seems to be outrage from atheists that Christians fail to follow the authorised athiest interpretation of the bible, and insist on accepting their own view, or that of other Christian believers. Naturally the kind of Christian who lives in an armed compound in Utah and shoots gays is more acceptable to the atheists. At least he knows what he believes.

The reason that Christians don't take their message from Atheist bible scholars is that the fundamental Christian message is quite simple, really. It's also difficult to actually practice.

There's an even more basic point that I don't think you're getting.

The reason you believe your own version of what is important in the bible is the exact same reason the armed compound christians believe their version about what is important in the bible.

You just want to. It seems to fit with how you think the world works.

It has nothing to do with "Truth". You just like your version better.

[volatile]

Originally Posted by meg

There's an even more basic point that I don't think you're getting.

The reason you believe your own version of what is important in the bible is the exact same reason the armed compound christians believe their version about what is important in the bible.

You just want to. It seems to fit with how you think the world works.

It has nothing to do with "Truth". You just like your version better.

Hear, hear.

Every single Christian on the planet is convinced that his particular and esoteric interpretation of what the "fundamental message" of the Bible is the One True One. Fred Phelps does. Rowan Williams does. Pope Ratzinger does. You all think your message is the one true one, but none of you agree.

Why might that be?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by westprog

Which is bad how? What is the sense in picking out the stupid and malevolent parts of religious belief? What's the point in ignoring useful insights and wisdom?

Do people who apply Newton's laws of motion have to believe in astrology?

.
It's pretty bad because it glosses over or just plain fails to mention the icky parts which conflict/contradict the nice smarmy feel-good stuff.
When balancing the whole, the icky parts outweigh the nice parts, when giving each of them equal weight.
"All-loving" is trumped by "eternal damnation", for instance.
These are in direct conflict with each other. Considered as being from the same source, the source is obviously screwed up.
Astrology, like religion, is outside science, and can say (and does say) anything it damn well please, reality not withstanding.
Just like religion.