|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 19, 2007 8:10:26 GMT -5
So, do the Amish have "extremely dubious morality"?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 19, 2007 8:34:40 GMT -5
Zoff,
What's with that big blank space in your post? Lol.
You were speaking of religious texts being held up as "models of virtue". So, if you were not accusing any religious group, then who are those people doing the "holding up"? You know you can't logically make blanket statements like that without giving specifics, Monsieur.
JC
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 19, 2007 9:40:03 GMT -5
But Abraham didn't kill Isaac, did he?
Speaking of contexts, that story occurred in an environment where in other cultures of the day sacrificing your own child to a god was totally acceptable, if not admired. God was simply saying to Abraham ... "alright, if others were willing to do it, would you do it for me?" It was just a test. Of course, it is morally reprehensible to even think about it in our present day.
This episode though foretells the coming of Christ, God's Son, and at that point God does allow His own Son to be killed.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 19, 2007 10:08:59 GMT -5
I have personally met a lot of moral atheists. Some of them are even living better moral lives than self-professed Christians. So, I don't know where you get that notion.
Again, when I read these passages, I always try to look for the context. The fact that he was in the end not required to kill his child is not irrelevant. It is very relevant. Abraham knew that God promised that Isaac would bear his descendants. So, in the end, Abraham had faith that Isaac was going to live. Yes, as Christians, we are called to obey God no matter what He asks.
Justice still requires the shedding of blood. In Christianity, Jesus is also God Himself as a member of the Trinity. So, yes, the omnipotent God Himself paid the ultimate penalty.
|
|
|
Post by ladystacey on Nov 19, 2007 17:57:08 GMT -5
Are these Christian fundamentalists really that bad for teaching kids not to abort and have pre-marital sex and believe that they are not the center of the universe? Or is MTV better with their sexual religion, where you are your own god, where you should have sex and drink alcohol to fill in holes in your life, where your worth is based on how visually appealing you are, and how scanty your clothing is? Have you seen the film? Because that was what the post was about not about the Christian religion as a whole. In the film church leaders were impressed how extreme Islamic brain washed the kids they found it admirable that Islamic instilled such strong religious beliefs in their kids that the kids would blow them selves up. They wanted to instill that same kind of extreme belief in these young kids to the point were if need be they do anything. There's a lot more to the film but that is just the tip of it. This film was based more on the Evangelical Christan church and now way did the film portray all Christian church's being like this it was more about the kids being brain washed and how it's becoming more and more accepted among the community.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Nov 19, 2007 22:18:23 GMT -5
Of course I've seen the film.
And I'm still betting my money these kids end up as better citizens than the average MTV moron, whose sole goal in life is f***ing and getting designer clothing.
Even though it is a bit extreme, the kids are still being taught good values. They are being taught that there is something greater than their petty selves.
As for the Islamic Jihad quote, what they meant was their passion for religion.
Maybe some EA's need Christianity or Islam so they wouldn't be self-worshipping, material obsessed, vain people.
The Evangelist movement is not all bad. There are more positive fringes within it. Look up Joel Olsteen and T.D. Jakes.
|
|
|
Post by ladystacey on Nov 20, 2007 2:06:22 GMT -5
^Really you saw the film and you think for kids to say, yes they would die for their Christian belief and if it came down to it they would follow violence in any way and kill is alright? It's only a bit extreme for a 7 year old to say they are the victim and they want to right it in any means? That's a scary thing to hear a kid say that and mean it to the core. They put those kids threw so much mental stress and emotional distress and guilt how is that right to do that to a kid when their religion is about acceptance, peace, love, etc. So I assume you saw the follow up with documentary right? How they are much better off and better citizens now, LOL ummm... right. In no way do I think the MTV generation, sex and drugs and all of that is right of course it isn't I don't think you need to follow a religion to be a good person or have family values. I think religion can be good to for those that need it but can balance it and not take it to the extreme where it involves wanting to hurt other people. In the film they interviewed Evangelist and they even had their own famous pastor admitting that their religion is great in bringing in the weak minded because how can they resist the positive mentality that the church offers and with that they follow. Those are dangerous statements to make, to admit to use and manipulate people like that, that's not very Jesus is it? There are great pastors out there as well but like I said in regards to the film I find it frightening that many in the congregation find this type of preaching o.k for kids, and those that do have a issue with it turn a blind eye or hope it will go away.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 7:06:16 GMT -5
I have personally met a lot of moral atheists. Some of them are even living better moral lives than self-professed Christians. So, I don't know where you get that notion. Many philosophers, however, have equated atheism with immorality, arguing that morality must be derived from God and cannot exist without a wise creator.[105][106][107] Moral precepts such as "murder is wrong" are seen as divine laws, requiring a divine lawmaker and judgefrom the wikipedia article on atheism. The relevance of him not having to kill the child is only to the nature of God, it does not change for one moment the obedience requested. The argument that Abraham knew Isaac would not be killed is illogical to me, as it defeats the whole purpose of the test. Nothing is being tested as if this were true then Abraham would already be aware that no sacrifice is being asked for. Which I'll concede is not a bad thing in itself, providing that God is the epitome of goodness. Justice still requires the shedding of blood. In Christianity, Jesus is also God Himself as a member of the Trinity. So, yes, the omnipotent God Himself paid the ultimate penalty. I know, I was raised a Catholic The whole thing just seems pointless though. Whatever God achieved through sacrifice, could have been achieved without sacrifice, because God is supposed to be omnipotent. Well, again I don't hold on to that notion that someone who's not Christian is automatically immoral and vice versa. Sorry that I didn't complete my second point about Abraham. Abraham was said to have had faith that even if Isaac were to be killed that Abraham believed that God will raise up Isaac from the dead. Again, that passage does not advocate the killing of children as a doctrine. God is supposed to be omnipotent but He's also just and again justice requires that the penalty has to be paid. For Christians, the cross is where all the divine attributes of justice and mercy are both fully demonstrated and reconciled. With regard to "religious indoctrination" of children, parents indoctrinate their kids in one form or another; whether it's religious or not to me there's no distinction. If you want to take that away from parents, well you might as well take away their ability to parent their own kids and create your own big orphanage.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 7:42:03 GMT -5
Well, in the New Testament, it does say to make sure that you "test" the preachers to make sure that what they're saying is making sense. It's not carte blanche. I've always tried to think for myself anyways; not accept everything as uncompromising truth just because someone says it's in the Bible. I'm curious though ... what made you reject Catholicism? No, I don't think justice is arbitrary per se. If God were to be a god that espouses justice in murder and theft, then the world that He creates will not be something that would work, wouldn't it? I mean no society can survive, much less prosper, under those rules. With regard to banning the indoctrination of children, I think that's again one of your crazy, impractical ideas. Government-mandated prison rape, remember?
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 9:59:01 GMT -5
How do I verify if it's God's will and not just some other voice? I pray about it, seek counsel of Christian friends/mentors, confirm it by God's Spirit, and make sure it aligns with the Bible (for example, the Ten Commandments). If others follow a different path to seeking God's will, that's their choice. But just because they claim God made them do it does not necessarily mean I'll accept it. Just because they say it's Christian doctrine does not mean it is.
As far as having a society function with upside down laws willed by God, well it's possible. But then it would be society run like robots. People would not be able to choose to obey God or not. I know you had a different thread about the subject of will, and that's a whole different topic, no?
Believe me I've tried to reject and scrutinize the faith of my heritage, but I've come up way short in my efforts to dismiss it. Also, if you don't believe in any god, that does not mean you have no religion. To me, atheism is also religion.
As far as arbitrariness, what if God Himself, though He's omnipotent, voluntarily chose to make Himself subject to the law? It's like a father arm wrestling with his five year old and letting the boy win. That does not mean the father had in fact lost his strength, does it?
Of course, what you're proposing is impractical. If theism is religious doctrine, then you also have to outlaw atheism, as well as other forms of religious teachings. How would you police that state? You'll be turning parents vs children and vice versa. It does scare me, Zoff, what kind of society you'd have in mind ... given your prior ideas already.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 10:55:41 GMT -5
Dang I wish I could reply with that cut and paste feature. It just looks more neat.
Imho, atheism is religion because we cannot exist in a moral vacuum. Atheism has its own core beliefs, though it's highly informal.
In your upside down society scenario, how can a society function if murder and theft are the "right" things to do? To not murder and theft would become against the law? God would then somehow need to make people immortal or else there wouldn't be anybody left. Lol. Of course, once God exercises that power, then our hands as human beings become tied. We are no longer free to choose, given that our choices become inconsequential, no?
There is a big difference though between "religious indoctrination" and exposing children to porn. Under normal circumstances, it would be extremely rare for a parent to expose their children to porn, while religious teaching is almost universal in American society. Let's not compare apples and oranges.
Your society would hardly be Utopian. It would be one bloody hell. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by long on Nov 20, 2007 11:31:48 GMT -5
^ Morality is not religion You're subtly falling into the same mindset you were denying. The thought that atheists/agnostics can't have morality without religion.
|
|
|
Post by ladystacey on Nov 20, 2007 12:01:15 GMT -5
^ I totally agree ;D
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 12:23:24 GMT -5
I'd just like to say that I do think that there are many admirable qualities in many religions. I'm not saying that they don't have their merits. If people want to follow one and don't harm anyone then they have my blessing, I won't try to talk them out of it. I just do not feel that we should force beliefs on people. Which is precisely what presently occurs. People are forced to adopt views which they may not have done, if they had been able to make an informed choice. And you're extending this argument to parents for "indoctrinating" their children in religious beliefs. My point is that parents "indoctrinate" their kids in a lot of things, besides religion. It's perfectly normal for parents to teach kids their own values, beliefs, and their faith. It seems to me that you're suggesting to take away that parenting prerogative from parents and police people in their own homes. To me, that's simply not acceptable. And what if they taught little Johnny to pray, those parents would go to jail? That is just way too extreme, just like your government mandated-rape example.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Nov 20, 2007 13:02:52 GMT -5
And you're extending this argument to parents for "indoctrinating" their children in religious beliefs. My point is that parents "indoctrinate" their kids in a lot of things, besides religion. It's perfectly normal for parents to teach kids their own values, beliefs, and their faith. I do understand what you mean, but regular values and beliefs are rarely as persistent as religious beliefs. Anyway, if a parent teaches questionable values to a child there is intervention (when the system works). As I've said, this already happens anyway. Children are vulnerable members of society and require protection. They should be free to choose and not force fed beliefs which have such a profound effect on their lives. To me, that's simply not acceptable. And what if they taught little Johnny to pray, those parents would go to jail? That is just way too extreme, just like your government mandated-rape example. This is what's known as a straw man argument. There are many many options available besides jail. Do we put people in jail for every offence? Why are you so against people having a right to choose for themselves? Oh, I'm not against people having the right to choose for themselves. However, for religious people, faith is part and parcel of their lives and their identity, like culture is. To force them to sever themselves from their identity in performing parenting is extreme, impractical, and cruel. If one is Chinese, can you force them to parent in such a way as to deny their Chinese culture and identity without greatly straining the parent-child relationship? Why are you so against people having a right to choose the way they want to raise their kids?
|
|