Not unique to Christianity at all, Damian...
No time to expand now. Will do later if no one else has.
No time to expand now. Will do later if no one else has.
I dont do them because they are wrong according to the bible but i will concede there is nothing really wrong with them if you think about it on a natural level. Kudos JemyM.
I would not say "there is nothing really wrong". When analysing any question it's important for me to be thorough. Some people get frustrated since they want clearcut answers, but I do not believe ethical questions can be given a black and white answer. There are always situations that might break a rule. It's only through reason and empathy we can be prepared to deal with such situations, where a computer (or dogma) go wrong.
Now I believe you do not engage in bestiality or cannibalism for other reasons than reading so in the Bible. I am willing to guess that you aren't a rapist or a pedophile either despite these not being mentioned in the bible. I am willing you reject slavery even though the Bible supports it, and I am willing you do not kill witches, unruly children, homosexuals, people who serve other gods etc, despite the Bible telling you to do so.
The reason you do not, is because you are the moral judger, not the Bible. You cannot shut off your morality completely, therefore you will only follow the Bible on topics that you inheritly supports and will make up excuses when the Bible say things differently than you (such as claiming that a passage should be interpreted differently and the "right" interpretion is compatible with your morality).
You remember how you wrote abotu the chicken and the egg scenario for sex and pronography in the media? The same applies here. I was a far more hateful person before religion than after atleast for Christianity one of the key tenants of the religion is to not judge others and it promotes mercy and sacrifice. These 3 things are probably unique to Christianity(correct me if i am wrong) and really cannot be learned by academia. It has to be taught via parents or society or religion. The problem however is that evil people can be Christians and use the bible out of context for their own evil deeds. If a person wants to hate they will despite all the boundaries you give them.
Given a situation where i had to eat a dead human being or die i would choose death because i believe in the bible.
Beastiality no becuase that isnt my sexuality. Rape or pedophelia, i dont entertain the thought "have no lust in your heart".
Slavery the bible is neutral on and the bible has a different take on what a slave really is, but that isnt in this discussion. If the bible did affirm slavery in our current form, then i would have to take a serious look at my belief in the bible. For all intents and purposes the bible is an addition to a base set of morals for me.
I say that is a stretch, one of those attempts to cherrypick unrelated sentences that miiiiiight sound like they support modern values. The Bibles position on rape seem to be that the man who raped someone should marry that woman.
You are quite correct about the first part. As for the second part isnt that old testament? Several "positions" of the bible are linked to the time periods. In those days women who got raped wouldnt be touched after the rape so it makes sense that the bible makes the man look after the woman.
I didnt say that the old testament was wrong. >.>
EDIT: I dont think that the new testament has anything on cannibalism or beastiality.
You used the "that time period" argument, which means that some acts was morally ok because they were done in a certain timeframe. Once in awhile you also hear that the Old Testament is obsolete due to the new order established by Jesus. In both cases, nothing from the Old Testament applies and one could also say that we live in a so different world today than when the last books in the Bible was written that it's content is irrelevant to everyone.
American anthropologists tend to be baffled by the fact that we almost have no policecars and no need for guns and this even if we are 85% atheist.
By generalizing the word "religion" and see religion as something essentially good and neccessary for those good benefits to come, all one does is to sanction the bad stuff that is unique to belief systems that rejected critical thinking and an emperical/rational worldview.
* Name a good moral action that can only be credited to religion.
What leads you to believe this? Do you have proof that empirical data and reason are incompatible with a religious identity?People who engage in science and preserve a religious identity do so by only paying the identity lipservice.
He is referrign to Matthew 15:4-7 where Jesus was talkign against the Corban scheme.
I would surmise that this has very little to do with atheism and a good deal more to do with a nearly homogeneous, industrialized society with a population and economy stable enough to support a socialist economic system wherein there isn't a very large gap between the rich and the poor. The addition or subtraction of religion into that equation isn't going to change the fact that Sweden is a nice place to live.
Case in point: there are a multitude of religions in the United States, but the violent conflicts that occur aren't centered on religious differences, but cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic ones. Take religion out of that equation, and that doesn't necessarily change the public landscape, either.
That's not what I've been saying. I haven't claimed that religion is necessary for those good things to come about
but it is a facilitator, or a catalyst. The fact that it doesn't jive with your empirical reasoning isn't the point, either. Not everyone has the benefit of your depth of education, if any education whatsoever, and they live in brutal circumstances wherein life and the contribution to a well ordered society isn't as highly regarded as it is in Sweden. This is also why I claimed that you lacked objectivity and were possessed of a certain level of ethnocentrism; because every other culture or belief system is measured and compared against your own, first. You fail to see how a society unlike Sweden's could have a net benefit from a religious culture, warts and all, and you can't simply replace religion with an empirical/rational worldview like you would change the oil in a car.
Pacifism.
In any and every culture wherein evolutionary factors did not demand it (the Moriori people of the Chatham islands, who adopted pacifism in order to conserve sparse resources) pacifism has arisen from religious values, and it could be argued that religion is the most reasonable explanation for why someone would resist all kinds of physical conflict. True pacifism, as expressed in many religions, means to engage in no violence, even at the cost of your own life.
To a Buddhist, who believes in the reincarnation of the soul, the loss of one's life is insignificant to the karma of attacking and intentionally harming another. Even in Christian traditions, pacifism means not resisting violence that would be done to you. The best and most loving thing that you can do for someone else is to literally give up your life for their benefit. This flies in the face of the universally accepted right to defend yourself, or someone else, from violence that threatens to end human life, yet in doing so, one chooses the highest moral ground that a person can take. It even goes against reason, because our reason states that it is clearly better for someone to defend themselves and neutralize an aggression, rather than allow the aggression to occur and leave the door open for it to happen in the future.
What leads you to believe this? Do you have proof that empirical data and reason are incompatible with a religious identity?
Finally, the use of oppositional and emotionally evocative terms like "good" and "evil," as well as your insistence that the only way to be free, liberated, intelligent, and happy is to reject religion in favor of a scientific and data-based worldview sounds a little religious in and of itself.
That passage MUST be A) read in context and B) read to at least verse 11. It has NOTHING to do with killing children, or for that matter anything. It has everything to do with hypocrisy. It is also attacking the appeal to tradition (so beloved by Catholics) rather than what, for example the Bible is really trying to say. Jesus would NEVER condone the killing of children, whereas the Pharisees could. They used the letter of the Law to condemn, Jesus used the spirit of the Law to show mercy and grace and forgiveness. Almost His last words were Father, FORGIVE them!! Here endeth today's lesson!!