Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just a query, as I was intrigued by the thread topic.
When we use all inclusive words such as "total," are we not setting ourselves to be closed-minded?
Personally, I learned from a very early age (mostly because of ridicule) not to use superlatives such as "always," "never," and the like.
To state that a religion is total nonsense, to me, is like telling another person the he/she never listens. Never listens? Impossible.
Unfortunately, just using the word "religion" is a superlative. The word alone has a great number of connotative meanings. Thus, when the thread title uses the word "religions," the originator of this thread had an idea or concept in mind, completely different than the effected responses.
Oh, sure. Sometimes a good thread title that will inspire a lot of emotion and high-blood pressure is effective.
But in this overall forum, where we do not play by any psychological rules or even rules and games of persuasion, the thread title is going to be regarded by most of us as an attack. And I would submit that before the very first word of the very next post is typed, the "armies" of the opposing views have already lined up, dug their trenches, armed their tactical nuclear warheads, and whoosh! we are at war!
The "religion" of the atheist is as dear to him/her as the "religion" of the agnostic and the "religion" to the theist or deist.
Now before the atheist starts thumping chest and lauching a new volley of nuclear weapons, "religion" refers to a way of life. If one believes that there is no God and lives a life according to that philosophy, then that has become the person's religion. Religion in no way necessitates ritual, dogma, and rules. Although, I do sometimes question that if the Buddhists have mantras for inducing and/or enhancing their meditation techniques, would not a "there is no god" become a similar mantra (of protection? or assurance?) uttered by the devout atheist?
But enough silly banter. THe New Testament reads: "When two or three are gathered in my name, there is love (or I am)."
Unfortunately for the human race, this truism is 99% in force: "when two or three people get together, there is chaos."
It is "my way or the highway," and with this philosophy in mind, under the church-like banner of Me-ism, the human race is essentially walking down 7 billion paths. Did I say "walking down"? More likely marching in place. Backwards, if that is possible at the same time.
And what's wrong with a little nonsense?
Would the world be better off without humor and silliness? We shoot the clowns now?
Would the world be better off without reality programming? [Well, maybe.]
Would the world be better off without watching people make fools out of themselves for a measely $20,000?
Should we be all Spock-logical? Mathematics eventually replacing the human language?
Is it so wrong to "cross my fingers and hope to die"?
If something makes people feel good, like a a nice placebo that actually works better (sometimes) than the actual medicine, is is so wrong as to deny people the very nonsense that makes them happy?
And, out of the now 7 billion people, in which of all those people will we reshape the world? I don't think anyone would really enjoy living in my world if I shaped the world in my image.
I hope the Country you belong isnt infused with moral relativism and is far more civil and moral than what God-rejecting America has become.
If you know of higher morals, values, and ethical standards that those found in the Bibles 10 Commandments and Jesus' teachings...please list . If not, then please stop bashing what are the best moral standards for any society ... even if the populus chooses to suppress them or call them 'antiquated' and 'irrelevant' for today. Ill be looking for the list . Thanks.
I live in Canada, a country with far fewer fundamentalists such as you, and far more nonreligious people than the US. What's more the murder rate in the US is three times that of Canada's, your aggravated assault is double ours, and your counties incidence of rape is shockingly high.
Rape occurs 28.8 times per 100,000 in the US, and 1.5 per 100,000 in Canada.
Obviously to me at least, your religion is not helpful when it comes to morals
Your ten commandments are not useful, nor are they relevant in today's world, but it is the only list your gonna get.
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
The first four show what an ego driven god you worship...Nothing to do with morals at all...Notice that the bolded part of the second commandment indicates that you god is lacking in morals himself.
5 through 9 are common sense, and commandment 10 is strange in that it is an attempt at thought control that cannot work...I don't know about my neighbors ox or donkey, but we all "covet" things that others have.
wallisdj: I'm all for a little nonense, especially funny nonsense. However, nonsense which is taken all too seriously is dangerous, especially when it is made part of the law of the land.
I live in Canada, a country with far fewer fundamentalists such as you, and far more nonreligious people than the US. What's more the murder rate in the US is three times that of Canada's, your aggravated assault is double ours, and your counties incidence of rape is shockingly high.
Rape occurs 28.8 times per 100,000 in the US, and 1.5 per 100,000 in Canada.
Obviously to me at least, your religion is not helpful when it comes to morals
Your ten commandments are not useful, nor are they relevant in today's world, but it is the only list your gonna get.
1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.
3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”
The first four show what an ego driven god you worship...Nothing to do with morals at all...Notice that the bolded part of the second commandment indicates that you god is lacking in morals himself.
5 through 9 are common sense, and commandment 10 is strange in that it is an attempt at thought control that cannot work...I don't know about my neighbors ox or donkey, but we all "covet" things that others have.
Since when do laws have to necesarrily deal with morality? What a simplistic view you have of things.
"No Jaywalking" - what an evil brainwashing law we have in this country, having nothing to do with morals- but with public safety and well-being.
Since the passage you quote is based on then-current contracts between kingdoms and vassals - the first four are pretty par for the course. I wouldn't expect you to actually research something before trashing it, though - that requires some work and critical thinking. It's much easier to just make blanket statements out of context.
This is the main reason why, on intellectual and rational grounds, I reject the existence of all gods and conclude that religions are simply man-made constructs.
In my opinion, a religion that was actually true, one that really was of divine origin, would need no apologists or defenders. It would be self-evident, so obviously true that no rational person could deny it. The empirical evidence for it would be overwhelming, so thorough that no reasonable person could explain it away.
Its truth would be so clearly plain to us that it would be in the very fiber of our beings. We would have it literally, as the Bible says, "written on our minds and hearts." It would be universal, accepted and practiced by all cultures and people groups. It would provide a coherent, reasonable, and just morality that would tell us exactly how to live, without any gray areas to agonize over, any cultural or historical contexts to decipher, any unjust principles to accept, or any past "divine" indiscretions (like much of the OT) to explain away.
It would accurately describe the past (in scientifically accurate terms, not fables like Creation or Noah's Ark) and provide a reasonable guide for the future (no fantastic apocalypse myths). It would provide useful advice (once again, in explicit and obvious, not vague or culturally dependent, terms) for all societies, such as how to cure cancer, how to manage natural resources, how to develop technology, how to run an economy, and how to punish criminals. It would eliminate the need for schooling, because it would be pure education . . . simply practicing this divinely inspired religion and communing with this hypothetical infinitely intelligent God would educate you far beyond what the best universities could give you in 20 years of advanced graduate courses.
So far, I have yet to find a religion like this. I'm convinced that it does not exist.Therefore, I rationally and logically conclude that there is no personal god (I can't completely rule out a non-interacting Deistic god) and that all world religions and gods are simply nonsensical man-made constructs.
If any theist has a logical argument to refute these things (not just "you need to have faith!!!!"), I'd be really interested in hearing it.
Well, let's ignore the debate about whether religions are or are not tomfoolery. Instead let's point out the rather sizable flaw in your logic--namely the belief that if something exists, then it must be self-evident and obvious to all who observe it.
Really? I'm guessing that Global Warming must not exist because reasonable people from both camps can look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Heck, we are inundated with economic figures, yet you can't get two economists to agree on next to anything. Heck, according to physicists, a bumblebee should not be able to fly. Yet it does.
In fact, if you have ever sat in a literature or film class, when's did anyone agree on anything that had all read or viewed?
Since when do laws have to necesarrily deal with morality? What a simplistic view you have of things.
"No Jaywalking" - what an evil brainwashing law we have in this country, having nothing to do with morals- but with public safety and well-being.
Since the passage you quote is based on then-current contracts between kingdoms and vassals - the first four are pretty par for the course. I wouldn't expect you to actually research something before trashing it, though - that requires some work and critical thinking. It's much easier to just make blanket statements out of context.
What are you talking about? Is murder, rape and assault moral in your book? It is if your book is the bible.....Who said anything about jay walking?
Your "then current contracts" (the ten commandments) are still being cited today as moral rules by many.
Where are my out of context statements? In any case I wasn't even addressing you...I was replying to 007.5, who cited the commandments in his/her argument.
What are you talking about? Is murder, rape and assault moral in your book? It is if your book is the bible.....Who said anything about jay walking?
Your "then current contracts" (the ten commandments) are still being cited today as moral rules by many.
Where are my out of context statements? In any case I wasn't even addressing you...I was replying to 007.5, who cited the commandments in his/her argument.
I know you weren't adressing me. And I agree that the 10 Commandments are not the best moral standards available. On that we agree.
But when you give Canada vs America statistics and somehow think the deciding difference is that Canada doesn't follow the Decalogue, or isn't full of Fundamentalists - the silliness of such a claim needs addressed. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
"Obviously to me at least, your religion is not helpful when it comes to morals" is what you stated, and it's quite a claim! Obviously - you have constructed a strange chain of cause and effect - with absolutely no evidence backing it up, or at the very least - bad evidence backing it up. "Is murder, rape and assault moral in your book? It is if your book is the bible" is another of your gems. Again, applying specific circumstances in times of war to a gross generalization or confusion of normal behavior. War is hell. I'm not condoning it - but merely pointing out that it was just as horrible back then, as it can be now. In most instances, it was much more horrible than today.
Besides that, anyone who uses the Decalogue as a reflection of God's complete character as portrayed biblically - is taking the Decalogue out of context without any consideration for the rest of the text. You're just as guilty as a Christian who quotes a verse here or there when he/she wants to make a point, and ignores the specific, contextual situation of the verse. The Decalogue was not a mirror into the Israelite god's soul - it was a contract, a legal document regulating the relationship between the two parties: a covenant - one of the culminating moments of the narrative leading up to it.
Your comment on generational punishment as being indicative of a lack of morals on God's part, is from a modern individualistic perspective - not a contextual, ancient perspective. Remember - this covenant was not with an individual, it was with a people. And a people are made up of generations. This idea was later modified (in case you didn't keep reading) by later prophets and biblical books, where individual culpability becomes normative. Most people conveniently overlook this, or are not aware of this change in outlook. The Bible frequently changes it's mind, evolves - like any philosophical system, or collection of books written by disparate authors.
But besides that - the most important background to the Decalogue - and there is not just one list of laws, or as you put it "Your ten commandments are not useful, nor are they relevant in today's world, but it is the only list your gonna get" - is it's Ancient Near Eastern background. [The "Decalogue" appears in several places, in several books, in different forms. In addition to that, there is a multitude of other laws. But I digress, merely to point out an error.]
The Covenant put forth in the Decalogue in the biblical books is directly based on the suzerain-vassal treaties of the Ancient Near East - as seen in extensive Hittite and Ugaritic treaties. For a quick rundown, see here: Suzerainty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The only difference here is that in the biblical narratives, God is taking the place of the human suzerain. So where you see "The first four show what an ego driven god you worship...Nothing to do with morals at all..." you should be seeing the typical relationship between a suzerain and his vassal state.
Commandment 1 directly parallels the context in which a treaty states the reason for the treaty, or what the suzerain has done or will do.
Commandment 2 parallels the obvious request of a suzerain that the vassal state will not switch allegiances to another suzerain, or country. That's part of why such treaties and agreements are made.
Commandment 3 does not refer to some holy, unpronounceable name - but rather to the prohibition against making false oaths (as is clear from the other instances of the "Decalogue" in other books) - another slight parallel pointing out that a treaty is not to be taken lightly, if you will.
Commandment 4 is an explanation of a ritual observance - this is just one of the reasons given for the observance of the Sabbath; another one is given elsewhere. The Sabbath was a great gift to a people who had once (according to tradition) been slaves, created (according to competing religion's theology) as mere servants of the gods: it gave them a day off every week. Who can complain about this great innovation in humanity?
So - taken out of context, you COULD say that this shows an egotistical god, entirely free of morals; but that is a stretch, and just typical complaints without much introspection. I don't think it's unreasonable (to use marriage as an analogy) to demand faithfullness from one's partner. Taken in context, and knowing the full background of suzerain-vassal treaties, not to mention previous law-codes - it should be fairly obvious that morals are not the only preoccupation of the biblical authors. They had law and order in mind, as well (thus my jay-walking comment) - not every law in existence MUST deal with morals. You seem to be implying that the Decalogue fails, because it is not entirely "moral" or does not deal with morals. This is a very, very brief over-view of the complexities of the Covenants found in the biblical books and does not do them justice. But neither does dismissing them with a curt "god is egotistical and immoral" statement....
My previous points in my previous post still stand.
There's better ways to criticize Christians, or America. Yours - was not a good one.
I'm curious. If you awoke tomorrow and found you had been anointed King of the USA, what changes would you enact to make us more moral?
You wouldnt like what i would propose because youd find it a fly in the ointment toward ones entitlement philosophy rampant in America today. Conversely, can you explain why the atheistic construct of moral relativism is and has been best for American society in these modern times ? List specifically please.
I know you weren't adressing me. And I agree that the 10 Commandments are not the best moral standards available. On that we agree.
But when you give Canada vs America statistics and somehow think the deciding difference is that Canada doesn't follow the Decalogue, or isn't full of Fundamentalists - the silliness of such a claim needs addressed. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
"Obviously to me at least, your religion is not helpful when it comes to morals" is what you stated, and it's quite a claim! Obviously - you have constructed a strange chain of cause and effect - with absolutely no evidence backing it up, or at the very least - bad evidence backing it up. "Is murder, rape and assault moral in your book? It is if your book is the bible" is another of your gems. Again, applying specific circumstances in times of war to a gross generalization or confusion of normal behavior. War is hell. I'm not condoning it - but merely pointing out that it was just as horrible back then, as it can be now. In most instances, it was much more horrible than today.
Besides that, anyone who uses the Decalogue as a reflection of God's complete character as portrayed biblically - is taking the Decalogue out of context without any consideration for the rest of the text. You're just as guilty as a Christian who quotes a verse here or there when he/she wants to make a point, and ignores the specific, contextual situation of the verse. The Decalogue was not a mirror into the Israelite god's soul - it was a contract, a legal document regulating the relationship between the two parties: a covenant - one of the culminating moments of the narrative leading up to it.
Your comment on generational punishment as being indicative of a lack of morals on God's part, is from a modern individualistic perspective - not a contextual, ancient perspective. Remember - this covenant was not with an individual, it was with a people. And a people are made up of generations. This idea was later modified (in case you didn't keep reading) by later prophets and biblical books, where individual culpability becomes normative. Most people conveniently overlook this, or are not aware of this change in outlook. The Bible frequently changes it's mind, evolves - like any philosophical system, or collection of books written by disparate authors.
But besides that - the most important background to the Decalogue - and there is not just one list of laws, or as you put it "Your ten commandments are not useful, nor are they relevant in today's world, but it is the only list your gonna get" - is it's Ancient Near Eastern background. [The "Decalogue" appears in several places, in several books, in different forms. In addition to that, there is a multitude of other laws. But I digress, merely to point out an error.]
The Covenant put forth in the Decalogue in the biblical books is directly based on the suzerain-vassal treaties of the Ancient Near East - as seen in extensive Hittite and Ugaritic treaties. For a quick rundown, see here: Suzerainty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . The only difference here is that in the biblical narratives, God is taking the place of the human suzerain. So where you see "The first four show what an ego driven god you worship...Nothing to do with morals at all..." you should be seeing the typical relationship between a suzerain and his vassal state.
Commandment 1 directly parallels the context in which a treaty states the reason for the treaty, or what the suzerain has done or will do.
Commandment 2 parallels the obvious request of a suzerain that the vassal state will not switch allegiances to another suzerain, or country. That's part of why such treaties and agreements are made.
Commandment 3 does not refer to some holy, unpronounceable name - but rather to the prohibition against making false oaths (as is clear from the other instances of the "Decalogue" in other books) - another slight parallel pointing out that a treaty is not to be taken lightly, if you will.
Commandment 4 is an explanation of a ritual observance - this is just one of the reasons given for the observance of the Sabbath; another one is given elsewhere. The Sabbath was a great gift to a people who had once (according to tradition) been slaves, created (according to competing religion's theology) as mere servants of the gods: it gave them a day off every week. Who can complain about this great innovation in humanity?
So - taken out of context, you COULD say that this shows an egotistical god, entirely free of morals; but that is a stretch, and just typical complaints without much introspection. I don't think it's unreasonable (to use marriage as an analogy) to demand faithfullness from one's partner. Taken in context, and knowing the full background of suzerain-vassal treaties, not to mention previous law-codes - it should be fairly obvious that morals are not the only preoccupation of the biblical authors. They had law and order in mind, as well (thus my jay-walking comment) - not every law in existence MUST deal with morals. You seem to be implying that the Decalogue fails, because it is not entirely "moral" or does not deal with morals. This is a very, very brief over-view of the complexities of the Covenants found in the biblical books and does not do them justice. But neither does dismissing them with a curt "god is egotistical and immoral" statement....
My previous points in my previous post still stand.
There's better ways to criticize Christians, or America. Yours - was not a good one.
What moral and ethical system/standard do you feel is better than the 10 Commandments for a nation like America...and what would be the advantages over these 10 Commandments in society ?
What moral and ethical system/standard do you feel is better than the 10 Commandments for a nation like America...and what would be the advantages over these 10 Commandments in society ?
To satisfy the Atheists we would have to eliminate the first 4 commandments. Actually that may work as it is only among the Abrahamic faiths that the first 4 have any meaning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
