copernicus

Right, Michael. There now seems to be evidence that practices like human sacrifice and cannibalism were more common than previously thought in primitive societies. Both practices have all but died in the modern era, and they are considered highly immoral by most religions, with their "objective" moralities. Were such practices always considered immoral by religious doctrines? I doubt it.

I can understand how cannibalism could have gotten started as a socially-acceptable practice. In times of famine, humans overcome their taboos in order to survive. In more recent times, we have the example of the Donner Party and tales of isolated accident victims who resorted to cannibalism in order to survive. In an era where food is abundant, cannibalism no longer makes any sense, and it dies out. Some ancient peoples used to practice ritual cannibalism as a funeral rite, and Jesus's "Last Supper" makes sense in that context. Human flesh and blood became bread and wine--an acceptable alternative to cannibalism. Similarly, the substitution of a lamb for Isaac in the ritual sacrifice was an acceptable alternative to human sacrifice.

A very few Christian sects still practice ritual animal sacrifice, and there are ritual butchering practices in some religions (e.g. kosher preparations). But even animal sacrifice seems to have largely died out in the modern era. Movies now place ritual language in them to assure the audience that animals were not killed or harmed in the production. Moral codes have changed and evolved, but authoritarian morality has always dragged its feet in terms of discarding unnecessary or harmful rituals.

ex-preacher

Yes, I realize that. The point here is that the command itself was immoral. As I said, there are plenty of other examples of murders that were supposedely carried out. Take your pick:
- the murder by drowning of all humanity
- the murder of all the firstborn of Egypt
- God’s command for the Israelites to utterly destroy the Canaanites, including women and children
- multiple commands for entire royal households to be wiped out because of the sins of the father

The good news is that all of the murders and commands to murder appear to fictional. I don’t think I would murder an innocent child at the command of a cosmic bully. Would you?


<strong> I find this quite hard to believe. You were perfectly happy to go to hell?

<strong> I have read much of what CS Lewis wrote. While I think he was an excellent communicator, he was not a great philosopher or theologian and certainly was no psychologist.

<strong> If you really are a Christian, you should know that the vast majority of Christians are not Calvinists. While it is possible to use the Bible to prove or disprove almost any theological position, I am convinced that numerous passages in the Bible teach the possibility of “falling from grace.” Regardless of my opinion, it is undeniable that most Christians believe it is possible for a once saved Christian to lose salvation. Even Calvinists have an “escape clause.” They simply will argue that a person who “falls away” never was really saved in the first place.

<strong> You are a better person than your god.

<strong> Elsewhere, though, you argue that God is bound to not interfere. Now you say that you interfere because God does? God also sends the tornado, the earthquake, the plague, and the cancer upon the just and the unjust. Do you feel obligated to also be an equal-opportunity smiter?

<strong> Same to you.

<strong> Yes, I have read it. Have you read anything besides CS Lewis and do you admire anyone besides MLK? This is getting a little old.

I’m not convinced that MLK was that much of a traditional Christian. Do you really think that he believed that Gandhi was in hell? Do you even think that MLK believed in hell?

Have you read where MLK said that the the God of the early Israelites was a vengeful, tribal god. He said that the 6th commandment meant “Don’t kill a fellow Israelite, but for God’s sake, kill a Philistine.” (This is a close paraphrase from a book of MLK quotes edited by Coretta Scott King. I read excerpts at our church’s last MLK celebration – UUs love him!)

<strong> As I’m not convinced that he even believed in heaven or hell, I’ll agree.

Have you read the article by Dershowitz? Since I have read tons of CS Lewis and MLK, it is the least you can do. I think you’ll find it very relevant to the issues we are discussing here.

<strong> I’d be willing to go with the “do unto others as you have then do unto you” statement attributed to Jesus. This sentiment was also expressed before Jesus by the rabbis, Greek philosophers and Buddha. It is a basic notion which I think can be derived from both reason and “natural law.”

free12thinker

luvluv ans ex-preacher are both stating that they don't believe people do what's right, simply based on God's word. I agree with them 100%. That's because there is no God. People do what's right because they feel pain. People do what's right because what IS right, FEELS right. A five year boy knows that when he hits someone, it is wrong. He knows before we tell him, and why? Because he has been hit to. I don't mean literally hit, I mean he has been in pain too. There are universal, subconscious things that we are all aware of in moral terms. Causing pain is one of them. For everything else, those "victimless" acts, there is no universally wrong answer. That's because there is no universal pain. People know this, with or without a god. As our society has progressed, and begun questioning authority, we have become more open minded about what's acceptable, using reason and logic that we have always had, but never utilized. A simple method in answering this question would be to question those who have never taken tutelage from a God or the bible, and seek out their moral fiber. Oh yeah, that would be a whole bunch of people.

free12thinker

Can theists be moral people? In a general sense, yes. The bible isn't 'evil', just misguided in certain areas. (womens rights, homosexuality, animal rights) And by extension, Christians are not evil, just a little out of touch with reality on certain topics (see above). Where theists go wrong is in their attempts to fix the unfixable. Women are ambitious and keeping them at bay is not going to make for a productive or fair society. Homosexuality is genetic and conversion classes and exorcisms are not going to change their preference. And although these things seem wrong to everyone, theists write them off as right according to God. In this, I wouldn't necessarily question their morality, just their intelligence.

ex-preacher

Check out Ezra 10. The standard "explanation" of this text by modern apologists is that the problem with the foreign wives was religious. Yet the text itself does not support this. The wives and children were sent away simply because they were non-Jewish.

Forget that "God hates divorce." Forget the moral obligation to support your own children. Forget your affection for your wife and children. Forget the possibility of converting your family to Judaism. Send the damn foreigners away!

luvluv

copernicus:

I think it is relevant that the book is full of crap if the book is, indeed, full of crap. I don't think every opinion one pulls out of the Bible is valid. Some can be proved to be invalid on the basis of scholarship. Some just are hasty, non-conclusive conjecture. For instance...

turt:

That's pretty weak. The editor "forgot" to put Isaac back in the story? Am I to believe that this would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced? I guess it helps if you are already of the opinion that Isaac was sacrificed, but it is not evidence if you didn't. You know, as a writer myself, sometimes I don't inform people of the existence of everyone present in a room in a short story I am writing.

ex-preacher:

First, you do not have to be a Calvinist to believe that specific acts of disobedience do not entail a loss of salvation. As far as I know, most Christians believe in salvation through grace. They know that they do not have to avoid sinning totally in order to gain salvation. God's salvation is described in most Christian churches as a free gift that cannot be earned. I can be your example, if you like. I make mistakes all the time, and I am never seriously afraid that for my mistakes that God will send me to hell. It simply does not operate as a threat to Christians. That's just a total misinterpretation of how it works. Almost no Christian that I have ever come in contact with thinks like that. That is a strawman.

copernicus

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>I think it is relevant that the book is full of crap if the book is, indeed, full of crap. I don't think every opinion one pulls out of the Bible is valid. Some can be proved to be invalid on the basis of scholarship. Some just are hasty, non-conclusive conjecture...</strong>

I said that the author was full of crap, not his book. For all I know, his quotes were relevant and accurate. After all, the primitive people that wrote the Bible were probably very much racists, and I am sure that there are legitimate quotes of racist sentiment in the Bible. What makes the author full of crap is that he is a racist who is trying to use biblical authority to justify his racism.

Luvluv, you are either missing my point or you refuse to address it. What I have been saying is that the Bible provides no moral guidance at all because anyone seems to be able to use it to validate any moral code they choose. All you have to do is pick and choose the verses that you want to emphasize or ignore. You yourself admit that, but you don't seem to get it. Every theist believes that they interpret the Bible in the "right" way, but it is all subjective opinion. Christian morality, like atheist morality, is based on one's upbringing and life experiences. If the Bible appears to contradict what you think is right or wrong, you just read it selectively. Everyone subscribes to the escape clause that you admit to: I don't think every opinion one pulls out of the Bible is valid. It is like Humpty Dumpty's statement in Through the Looking Glass:

luvluv

Well, I disagree with you. If you read the entire Bible in it's context and evolution, I think that some concepts are indefensible. If I were to take a single sentence out of, say, War and Peace, and try to make the contention that War and Peace supports some argument you would call that ridiculous. And it would be. But the fault would not lie with War and Peace, but with the invalid use of certain segments of it.

It's called proof-texting, and I don't believe in it. I think before you can start saying anything about what the Bible says you have to read the whole thing, and take everything it says on an issue into account.

copernicus

Don't be silly, luvluv. War and Peace was the work of a single man. The Bible was the work of many men over many generations. That is why there are so many contradictory passages in it. The authors held differing views of the nature of their god(s), and there is no objective way to tell that one verse is more important than any other. All you are trying to do is claim that your personal interpretation is superior to everyone else's. Why should we believe that?

<strong>I think before you can start saying anything about what the Bible says you have to read the whole thing, and take everything it says on an issue into account.</strong>

But you have already admitted that you don't take everything the Bible says at face value. You choose not to believe everything you read in the Bible. All I am saying is that your opinion is no better than anyone else's. It is just an opinion. There is no "objective" interpretation of what the Bible recommends, because the Bible itself is nothing more than a multi-generation quasi-mythical history of the Jewish tribes.

ex-preacher

I don't believe it; we agree yet again! I'm wondering how exactly you decide which parts are indefensible. Surely, you do not allow your own fallible mind sit on judgment of the "Word of God." Still, it's nice to be able to pick and choose which parts are really inspired. It makes defending the Bible much easier.