Why respecting Christianity without friction is so dangerous

[Damian Mahadevan]

You do not follow the ethics in the Bible. Everytime the bible goes against your values you seek a way to reinterpret the bible. That's pretty much your job, isn't it?

I disagree with this idea but whatever.

 

[Rithrandil]

How can morals ever be outdated? Sorry, but that concept escapes me!! Morals ARE. Either something is moral, or it is not. I'll agree that SOME morality can be affected by culture; there are few if any moral absolutes outside of either culture, or religion, but which morals specifically do YOU consider outdated and why. While I don't believe in other religions, at least for the most part we share a fairly common moral code!!

Do you believe slavery is okay? Do you think it's alright to stone someone for working on the sabbath? Does touching the skin of a dead pig make you unclean? Do you think we should go stone someone for planting crops side by side? Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination? Do you think it is moral to give up your own daughters to be raped rather then let a stranger get raped?

Things held to be "good" a few thousand years ago are recognized as not being such today. Slavery was accepted as moral by a great deal of people until 160-ish years ago. The bible was written when a lot of really bad things were considered moral or "god's will". So now, the job of the modern Christian is to "interpret" what it all "really means", ignore all the really bad parts - except the part where it says homosexuality is an abomination, that's alright to keep - but any time anyone else brings up anything from the Old Testament make some weak theological argument about how it "doesn't count".

 

[JemyM]

It's funny, by being on this forum for several years, I know exactly that I've seen this scene quite often before
Corwin did use to argue with JemyM as well, I think.

It have been something out of a habit to keep the debate alive. I actually tend to learn something each time we do this. It's a bit like going back to an old game, just to see what happens if you do things differently.

 

[Pladio]

Well to add something to this debate, I once read an article about how some Afghan tribes, I don't know which ones have completely different morales than we do here in the West.

As in, if someone breaks some kind of honour code, then the one whose honour has been breached has the right to kill the other person and if not that, he has the right to take some of the person's property or livestock.

But the breach of honour can anything from the more sever of harming someone in that person's family to just an insult we would deem as not even worthy of a response.

Just trying to add that the morale code of each society is different, depending on many factors.

At the time the Old Testament was written, the morale code probably was actually good. I however know for a fact that very soon afterwards people stopped following the literal meaning of the Old Testament as people started writing the Oral Torah (Mishna) and the Talmud and everything in between and after (Tosafot, Pirkei Avot,...).

Literalists among Jews are very few, at least in the way of how it seems some Christians tend to hold to it. As in, most of the laws aren't upheld like it says in the Old Testament. You don't actually get stoned for not upholding the Sabbath or for not respecting your parents/elders/god.

People have been 'updating' the morale code since it was written, and even if some of it is quite outdated, it is actually still being revised everyday.

So my point of view is that yes, the morale code of the Old Testament is OLD, I even believe that the revisions are OLD, but I wouldn't condemn all of it like Jemy does. There is quite a good deal of good in the Old and New Testaments and even in the other books. I know there's a lot of bad as well, but showing only the bad side or only the good side is bad. It's not all black or white, there's a lot of grey in between and I think this has to be pointed out.

 

[JemyM]

Ethics is a process, if you do not allow ethics to evolve with new experiences you are going to create a dogma and then ethics end up doing bad rather than good.

Recognizing that is not the same as condemning all of it, it's just carry too much dead weight to be valuable in our time. The good stuff is already absorbed and now the bad stuff outshines the good if you study the tome from a democratic, humanitarian and utilitarian perspective.

There's simply not enough valuable content in the Bible to even bother mentioning it in a modern course in Practical Ethics anymore and most of the general etiquette we learn these days have nothing to do with the Bible since we live in a different time with different social ties, different technology, more experience etc.

I mean, I have actually found some good stuff in the Qu'ran as well. That do not mean I have to advocate the Qu'ran as a good moral source right?

 

[Prime Junta]

Actually, JemyM -- I think there is a reason to mention the Bible in a course on practical ethics, at least in our part of the world.

History.

Ethics don't spring into the world fully-formed. You've argued yourself that they're shaped by historical and social forces over hundreds or thousands of years. I don't think you can get a good understanding of the ethical frameworks Western post-Enlightenment societies live with without mentioning the Bible somewhere along the line.

 

[JemyM]

Actually, JemyM -- I think there is a reason to mention the Bible in a course on practical ethics, at least in our part of the world.
History.
Ethics don't spring into the world fully-formed. You've argued yourself that they're shaped by historical and social forces over hundreds or thousands of years. I don't think you can get a good understanding of the ethical frameworks Western post-Enlightenment societies live with without mentioning the Bible somewhere along the line.

Do not confuse ethics with values & tradition. If you are messing around with utilitarian ethics, history can be used as a way to judge consequences but that's pretty much it. Those who really went all the way into Practical Ethics and examined certain situations from all visible angles tend to come up with a very different framework and sometimes a different conclusion compared to what used to be seen as "good". Values today is also very much shaped by modern ideologies, in particular enlightenment ideologies. We pay more attention to the value of structure/stability/authority/freedom/equality/human rights/democracy etc.

Also remember that it's first in the recent years in which we have freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, democracy, full rights to women and the explosion of science and psychology. It's only 200 years ago since our major ideologies and economic doctrines took up speed and reached mainstream debate. We didn't even open up a debate regarding ethics until very recently. Values have changed more in the past 100 years than between year 0-1500. Democracy and intellectual freedom was still not self-evident in Europe until the second half of 1900. Psychology alone have almost entirely revamped the way we see morality and human thought.

People in general happen to have a very poor insight into the Bible. Sure, you can pick random quotes from it, but it tend to have very little impact on modern taught compared with other ideas. In fact, much of modern mainstream Christianity is a reinterpretation of the Bible based on modern ideologies, and it's central concepts are often said to be the same as whatever the Christians ideology is, whether it's conservatism, liberalism or socialism. Protestantism in particular is a humanist reinterpretion of the Bible.

Western thought is much longer, larger and more complex than any single source. If anyone should be mentioned our values and traditions are more shaped by men like Aristotle or events like the French revolution than the Bible. One could go as far to say that the Bible itself is simply a blend of Egyptian/Mesopotamian culture that was later showered by Greek philosophy. If one is really interested to hear all the arguments relevant to this day, one is better off beginning with the 20th or 19nth century than with the bible.

 

[Prime Junta]

Western thought is much longer, larger and more complex than any single source. If anyone should be mentioned our values and traditions are more shaped by men like Aristotle or events like the French revolution than the Bible. One could go as far to say that the Bible itself is simply a blend of Egyptian/Mesopotamian culture that was later showered by Greek philosophy. If one is really interested to hear all the arguments relevant to this day, one is better off beginning with the 20th or 19nth century than with the bible.

Of course I don't mean that *only* the Bible should be discussed -- that would be absurd.

But I also think that you're engaged in revisionism on a massive scale if you want to restrict your discussion to the past 200 years. It's even more glaring if you want to jump from Aristotle to the Enlightenment, while skipping over Augustine through Aquinas.

 

[JemyM]

Of course I don't mean that *only* the Bible should be discussed -- that would be absurd. But I also think that you're engaged in revisionism on a massive scale if you want to restrict your discussion to the past 200 years. It's even more glaring if you want to jump from Aristotle to the Enlightenment, while skipping over Augustine through Aquinas.

I am not talking about restriction, I am talking about priority.

Augustine, "enslavement is Gods punishment" and Aquinas, "the state will be demolished if left to women. Women was created to help man, not any other work because then she's better helped by a man, but for having his children. Women are subordinate men for his own good since men have better capacity of reason"... are more useful as bad examples of history than good ideas worth a debate. Besides, Aquinas is just an Aristotle fan.

If you wish to discuss those two mentioned ideas specifically; Freedom, and Women Rights, then I would suggest John Stuart Mill, Simone De Beauvoir, Mary Wollstonecraft, dissecting the Declaration of Human Rights etc. Yes, I know that Aquinas made a few points regarding Natural Rights, but he's barely worth a footnote in comparison to Aristotle himself or John Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill etc, men who really had strong points still relevant to this day.

 

[Prime Junta]

But you can't understand Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham or the rest if you don't understand what they were arguing *against.* That's all the truer the further back you go. And whether you like it or not, Christianity, the churches, and the Bible have had an enormous role in shaping the societies and ethics that we live with; editing them out of the story is pure Soviet-style revisionism -- falsifying history for political purposes -- and I do not approve of that sort of thing at all.

 

[Pladio]

Ethics is a process, if you do not allow ethics to evolve with new experiences you are going to create a dogma and then ethics end up doing bad rather than good.

Recognizing that is not the same as condemning all of it, it's just carry too much dead weight to be valuable in our time. The good stuff is already absorbed and now the bad stuff outshines the good if you study the tome from a democratic, humanitarian and utilitarian perspective.

There's simply not enough valuable content in the Bible to even bother mentioning it in a modern course in Practical Ethics anymore and most of the general etiquette we learn these days have nothing to do with the Bible since we live in a different time with different social ties, different technology, more experience etc.

I mean, I have actually found some good stuff in the Qu'ran as well. That do not mean I have to advocate the Qu'ran as a good moral source right?

My point wasn't so much of it being taught or not in classrooms, but more that you usually only bring out the bad when you talk about the Bible and Christianity.

My point was that there are some good things in it. It's not because the Quran has some good morale points that it should be your moral source, but it wouldn't hurt to look at the good stuff too.

 

[JemyM]

But you can't understand Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Bentham or the rest if you don't understand what they were arguing *against.* That's all the truer the further back you go. And whether you like it or not, Christianity, the churches, and the Bible have had an enormous role in shaping the societies and ethics that we live with; editing them out of the story is pure Soviet-style revisionism -- falsifying history for political purposes -- and I do not approve of that sort of thing at all.

You are talking about the development of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Do not confuse history with ethics either.

I rather have the time to discuss positive rights, general will, egalitarianism etc than I am interested in trying to get people to understand Aquinas and Augustine's ideas since their ideas aren't that relevant to our time. Aristotle isn't just relevant to history. He actually makes some really strong points on moral philosophy that is still relevant to this day, regarding how to live your life.

 

[JemyM]

My point wasn't so much of it being taught or not in classrooms, but more that you usually only bring out the bad when you talk about the Bible and Christianity.

And I will continue to do so as long as there are people who widely promote it as infallible or a valuable education of moral behavior for the modern man. I do not need to do the same with the Iliad or Shakespeare since people aren't pushing them as relevant in an ethical debate.

My point was that there are some good things in it. It's not because the Quran has some good morale points that it should be your moral source, but it wouldn't hurt to look at the good stuff too.

Thing is, that the moral points in the Bible simply isn't that unique. I mean, you can begin to speak about the golden rule, but the golden rule is present in 21 world religions and several pre-Christian philosophies, so it's better to refer to it as the golden rule than Christianity. There are even versions of that rule, older than the bible, described better than it's described in the bible.

The value of sharing is not described as well in the Bible as it is within Islam. Bring up almost everything said in the bible and there's a better source that have nuanced the ethic rule without the crap around it. I once listened to a lecture on Freedom where the professor mentioned "the truth should set you free", but that's a gnostic idea that wasn't really relevant to the way we see freedom. He then went on speaking about Hinduism and stoicism that better described the version of freedom (freedom through self-control) he was trying to teach about.

 

[Prime Junta]

You are talking about the development of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Do not confuse history with ethics either.

I am, because I believe very strongly that you cannot separate the two, and attempting it will almost certainly lead to dangerous misconceptions and errors.

(OK, if we're talking about hard sciences, the development of ideas is less important than the ideas themselves -- but even there, understanding the history of science can be a big help.)

 

[Rithrandil]

I think Christianity/religions are an important and interesting area of study, personally. I think the world would be a poorer place if not for some of the artistic wonders they've produced, and I think it's important to understand history and why things are the way they are today. I think there are good moral lessons in religious texts, but that you can get them from other sources as well - sources that are much less dangerous to rely upon. I'd be extremely happy if everyone suddenly became an atheist, but even if that happened I wouldn't want us to tear down Cathedrals or go toss all copies of the Bible or the Quran in the trash.

I think the fact that a sitting American president said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, that homosexual marriage is banned in the States based solely on religious reasons and the continuous effort to put Intelligent Design in class rooms shows that relying on the Bible for moral guidance or for your view of the world is probably not the best of ideas.

 

[JemyM]

I am, because I believe very strongly that you cannot separate the two, and attempting it will almost certainly lead to dangerous misconceptions and errors. (OK, if we're talking about hard sciences, the development of ideas is less important than the ideas themselves -- but even there, understanding the history of science can be a big help.)

History of ideas, or development of ideas, is a great and interesting subject, but I consider it to be a separate subject from Ethics.

In general, giving the founder of an idea a nod is not a bad idea, but usually philosophy is divided in topics where relevant contributions to the topic is more important than understanding the philosophical history. I mean, you cannot have a lecture on freedom without mentioning Mills arguments, that would be a disaster, but you could certainly do a lecture on epistemology without mentioning Aquinas which might be more relevant in theology. Each one of the philosophers mentioned in my previous post have made strong and important contributions that is still valid and worth to consider today, even without the historical baggage added to it.

As a sidenote; I personally will begin studying the development of ideas in the University in Gothenburg beginning after summer.

 

[Prime Junta]

Congratulations. It'll be interesting to see if your perspective changes once you get deeper into the subject.

 

[JemyM]

I wouldn't want us to tear down Cathedrals or go toss all copies of the Bible or the Quran in the trash.

I recently read up on slavery, and when I read on the pyramids I couldn't help by thinking on those Cathedrals. I wonder if they would ever had been able to build those without forced labor.

The Bible has a strong literally value as you wouldn't understand half of European literature without understanding it's themes. We generally do not throw out books because they have a bad history, but it might be necessary to make sure people in general know the history related to their use, such as Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.

 

[ffbj]

I really don't care too much for what Crusaders have to say, no matter what sort of Crusade they happen to be on. Any contradictory opinions are just plain wrong. They already know the truth so they set themselves up as authorities and tell everyone else how wrong they are if they disagree. I read up on this or I read up on that. I studied this, or I studied that. Ok. Now I know it all and can tell all the rest of you how to think.

 

[Corwin]

A small point; I don't consider slavery, for example, to be a 'moral' issue. Don't get me wrong, I think it's abhorent, but neither morally good or bad of itself. People tend to accept philosophical concepts such as 'the greatest good for the greatest number', without realising that it vindicates the use of limited slavery. For me, that goes way beyond a question of morality!!