Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more 
>> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
> 
>   That depends on the definition of morality. Who says your definition is
> better than someone else's?

I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start 
talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then 
you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones 
to pick with that approach.

>> If you're going to take something as clear as most of the comandments 
>> are, and add interpretations and exceptions, then the religion stops 
>> having anything to do with it.
> 
>   In your opinion religion cannot have generic rules with exceptions,
> in the exact same way as for example constitutions and penal laws have?
> Religion can only have absolutes?

Human laws have checks and balances built in. When there's a death 
penalty, there's an explicit law stating the person pulling the switch 
is not guilty of murder. Police have the ability to do things that would 
land a non-authorized person in jail. Detectives can get pieces of paper 
from judges that let them bash in your door and haul away your stuff, 
which would be theft if done by your neighbor. And, in most civilized 
places, this is all written down. Admittedly, maybe so difficult to find 
that it takes years of training to learn how (i.e., law school), but 
written down nevertheless.

I'm not saying religion can only have absolutes. I'm saying that as it's 
written in the Bible, it's pretty absolute. And one would hope that the 
creator of the universe and the font from which all morality flows would 
be capable of making his desires clear to those who believe in him. 
Especially given the kind of punishments JHVH seems to dole out to those 
who piss him off.

>> Just like if you're going to make excuses for God punishing the serpent 
> 
>   Excuses? I don't understand. Someone made something evil and he was
> punished. Why does that need some excuse?

I'm sorry. There's too many pronouns there for me to understand what 
you're referring to. Who is the someone that made something evil, and 
what was that something that was evil, and what made it evil?

>> [*] That whole tree-of-knowledge bit was really one giant cock-up, 
>> showing just how evil JHVH really is
> 
>   Just because you don't understand what it means doesn't necessarily
> mean that it's not logical or fair in the original context.

Ah, so now God's message is context-dependent? Sounds like God is 
getting weaker and weaker with every excuse. First, there are unwritten 
exceptions to very clear commandments. Then you have to take into 
account whether a creature that God created and controlled, which had no 
free will of its own, telling the truth when God didn't, should be 
punished for eternity by God for contradicting him? :-)

Of course, if you read the Bible as fictional literature with 
allegorical suggestions about some good ways to think about the world, 
and you use your own brains to determine what parts you want to accept, 
and you don't insist that because it's written in the Bible that your 
conclusions about that stuff are better than mine, then sure, maybe it's 
a decent place to look for inspiration. Better than more modern works? 
That's a different question.

My opinion is that neither of us can be sure we understand what the 
original means. I base my analysis on the actual text in the book 
sitting on my bookshelf. Admittedly, it's English, so it has already 
been translated at least once. On the other hand, my interpretation 
hasn't been filtered through the advice of someone who has a vested 
interest in making the characters in the story look good or look bad or 
have any particular attributes. I.e., I haven't in years sat down with a 
religious leader and asked him to explain why God was actually just in 
punishing the serpent, or Adam and Eve for that matter.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> If the latter, it's nonsensical to say that religious people are more 
>>> moral or kinder or whatever than areligious people.
>>
>>   That depends on the definition of morality. Who says your definition is
>> better than someone else's?
> 
> I thought that was the point of religion, yes? If you actually start 
> talking about *why* one set of morals is better than another, then 
> you're not longer talking about religion, but science. I have no bones 
> to pick with that approach.
> 
>>> If you're going to take something as clear as most of the comandments 
>>> are, and add interpretations and exceptions, then the religion stops 
>>> having anything to do with it.
>>
>>   In your opinion religion cannot have generic rules with exceptions,
>> in the exact same way as for example constitutions and penal laws have?
>> Religion can only have absolutes?
> 
> Human laws have checks and balances built in. When there's a death 
> penalty, there's an explicit law stating the person pulling the switch 
> is not guilty of murder. 

I think there is another twist to this discussion. Given that there is a 
law that permits the death penalty the *state* has the option to kill 
someone, and indeed someone has to execute that. Assuming that the 
members of the parliament that passed this law are Christians. That 
means that they decided that there were things that are of higher 
morality than the commandments. As a true Christian (or jew or muslim 
for that matter) can you do that? And what would that higher source be? 
(I know that some Dutch Christians refer to Paul's letter to the Romans 
chapter 13 for this, is that approach common elsewhere?)

[snip]

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not saying religion can only have absolutes. I'm saying that as it's 
> written in the Bible, it's pretty absolute.

  Yes. Take one single verse, remove it from the rest of the book, and
state that single verse, all by itself, is absolute, without even
understanding the context in which it has been written.

  Why is the concept of a principle being written over a larger span of
literature so difficult to understand or accept?
  You have to take *everything* that is written about the subject. You can't
take one single verse, rip it off, and take that as the absolute truth.
It's no different from taking individual words from the Bible and creating
sentences with them.

> And one would hope that the 
> creator of the universe and the font from which all morality flows would 
> be capable of making his desires clear to those who believe in him. 

  If someone doesn't *want* to understand, or *wants* to understand it
in the wrong way, he will do exactly that, no matter how it is written.

> Especially given the kind of punishments JHVH seems to dole out to those 
> who piss him off.

  Right. Just look at the punishments without even trying to understand
the reasons behind, and then declare that they are unfair and make no
sense.

> >   Just because you don't understand what it means doesn't necessarily
> > mean that it's not logical or fair in the original context.

> Ah, so now God's message is context-dependent?

  How could it not be context-dependent?

  A message is given by someone to someone else for some purpose or
reason. Of course you have to know who is giving the message, who is
the recipient of the message, why the message is being given and what
is it that the message is trying to say. All this depends on context.
The meaning of the message can totally change depending, for example,
on who wrote the message and to who.

  For example, if a message has been written to all priests, does that
mean that the message is intended for non-priests? Or if a message is
written for women, does that mean the message is intended for men? Or
if a message is written for a *certain* woman, does that mean the
message is for *all* women or *all* people? If a message is written
in the context of laws for times of war, does that mean the message
is intended to be used when there's no war? If a message is written
in the context of being used in a religious ceremony, does that mean
it should be used in other contexts too?

  Of course messages are always context-dependent.

> Sounds like God is 
> getting weaker and weaker with every excuse.

  What excuse? How is God getting weaker if he gives messages to certain
people in certain situations? What else should he do in your opinion?

> Of course, if you read the Bible as fictional literature with 
> allegorical suggestions about some good ways to think about the world, 
> and you use your own brains to determine what parts you want to accept, 
> and you don't insist that because it's written in the Bible that your 
> conclusions about that stuff are better than mine, then sure, maybe it's 
> a decent place to look for inspiration. Better than more modern works? 
> That's a different question.

  Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Yes. Take one single verse, remove it from the rest of the book, and
> state that single verse, all by itself, is absolute, without even
> understanding the context in which it has been written.

Well, I think I'm pretty familiar with the context around the ten 
commandments, for example. They *still* seem pretty absolute.

>   You have to take *everything* that is written about the subject. 

I've read the entire old and new testaments. What more is there about 
the subject that I'm missing for context? Given that the bible is the 
only place Moses or Jesus is mentioned in contemporary (to the Bible 
that is) times, what context don't I have?

>> And one would hope that the 
>> creator of the universe and the font from which all morality flows would 
>> be capable of making his desires clear to those who believe in him. 
> 
>   If someone doesn't *want* to understand, or *wants* to understand it
> in the wrong way, he will do exactly that, no matter how it is written.

One would hope the all-powerful omniscient omnipotent creator of the 
universe and worker of miracles would be able to get around that 
problem. :-)

Or, to put it another way, there are very, very few people who 
disbelieve in the chair they're sitting in. Most of them we call 
"insane". Why can't the all-powerful creator of the universe and 
everything in it manage to be at least as clear?

>> Especially given the kind of punishments JHVH seems to dole out to those 
>> who piss him off.
> 
>   Right. Just look at the punishments without even trying to understand
> the reasons behind, and then declare that they are unfair and make no
> sense.

Oh, I know the reasons behind them. Tell me what you think is the reason 
behind punishing the Romans for Adam having eaten the apple, or the 
reason behind punishing modern day serpents?

Don't just say "You don't understand, hence you're wrong."  Show me that 
you *do* understand. Because otherwise you're just bluffing.

Explain to me what the serpent did wrong, other than simply telling the 
truth when God had lied?  And don't start quoting stuff outside the 
Bible to back up your interpretation. Nobody you cite could possibly be 
as authoritative as the Word of God Himself, don't you think?

(Again, if one admits the Bible is simply allegorical fiction, on par 
with Zeus, Muhammed, and Qutezycoatl, then I'm cool with that. I only 
argue against people who somehow think their religion is more real than 
someone else's, or more real than actual experience as actual science, 
for example.)

>   How could it not be context-dependent?

I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)

I mean, if the message is so important you're going to condemn every 
single animal, plant, and human to eternal torture, you could manage to 
be clear about what you want.

>   For example, if a message has been written to all priests, does that
> mean that the message is intended for non-priests?

Dude, there were only two humans in the entire f'ing world. Who could 
the message possibly be for that I'm missing out on? :-)

>   Of course messages are always context-dependent.

You're trying to be reasonable. Religion usually doesn't work that way. 
:-)  Given he created the entire universe, why would God's messages be 
context-dependent? Wouldn't the context be His Entire Creation?

>   What excuse? How is God getting weaker if he gives messages to certain
> people in certain situations? What else should he do in your opinion?

If God wants all people to behave a certain way, wouldn't you think he'd 
express his messages in a way that all people would understand it? If 
not, why not?

>   Or maybe if you try to understand the message instead of trying
> deliberately to misunderstand it to attack people.

I'm not attacking any person or people. And I *do* understand the 
message. I just don't understand it the same way you do.

Tell me what you think the message is, in the Adam and Eve Get Kicked 
Out story? What message do you think Ken Ham thinks is in that story? 
Because the message I see is "even though you didn't know you were doing 
anything wrong, you disobeyed me, so rather than being forgiving, or 
understanding, or simply take away what you took that I told you not to, 
I will bring down misery and pain on you, your children, your relatives, 
and every being of your entire species forever and ever." I'd be curious 
to hear your interpretation and why you think yours is more accurate.

Of course, yours is the traditional religious chant, which I've heard 
hundreds of times. "You'd agree, if only you *understood* the message. 
The only possible reason for reading it differently than I do is your 
ignorance." This seems to be a very common fall-back stance for people 
who are unable to convince others to have the same sort of faith they 
do. Of course, the basic flaw is trying to *convince* someone to have 
faith. It's really almost an oxymoron.

Note that I'm not trying to insult you or your apparently-reasonable 
beliefs. If you have a personal faith that you're right, I'm confident I 
won't shake that, and more power to you. I'm sure it's a great comfort 
in times of distress, and since you seem to be a good person, you 
haven't let bad interpretations of your beliefs cause too much trouble.

I, however, have no personal interaction with any dieties, so when I 
talk about them, I tend to treat them as fictional. This isn't intended 
to be any more insulting than if I tell you I don't like the same kind 
of music you do or enjoy the same style of novels that you do. If I said 
"Band X sucks" and they're your favorite band, would you feel insulted? 
Nor should you when I point out flaws in the literal interpretation of 
religious texts that you believe or don't.

I simply use other routes to get to the place from which I make my 
decisions, and I take comfort in other forms of knowledge when problems 
arise.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:22:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   Yes. Take one single verse, remove it from the rest of the book, and
>> state that single verse, all by itself, is absolute, without even
>> understanding the context in which it has been written.
> 
> Well, I think I'm pretty familiar with the context around the ten
> commandments, for example. They *still* seem pretty absolute.

I will probably regret saying this, even as a non-Christian, but in 
debates I've had with others on this exact topic, the typical response is 
"God can make exceptions - for example, if God commands you to kill, then 
you aren't in violation of the 5th commandment, because God said to do 
it."

That's not entirely unlike the exception in death-penalty state laws that 
makes the person not pulling the switch not guilty of committing murder 
when they pull the switch.

So, while I disagree with the fundamental idea of organized religion 
itself, I can understand the idea that the context is larger than just 
that section of Exodus where the 10 commandments are spelled out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   How could it not be context-dependent?

> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)

  I honestly don't understand. Because the one who sends the message is God,
then there cannot be context of the message anylonger? Because the one who
sends the message is God it should be possible to rip off a few words of
the message and still maintain the whole meaning of the message?

  How exactly do you expect this to be possible, especially taken into
account that the message is in written human text?

  You can't rip off a few words of a long message and expect it to
preserve its meaning. It's just impossible.

  I think that's one of the definitions of a straw man: Take part of what
the others are saying (out of context), distrort it and then ridicule it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> "God can make exceptions - for example, if God commands you to kill, then 
> you aren't in violation of the 5th commandment, because God said to do 
> it."

Well, sure. Obviously if it comes from *God* it makes sense that it's an 
exception. Where JHVH commanded his followers to commit genocide, 
obviously they were justified in doing so. Or if someone says "thou 
shalt not suffer a witch to live," I guess that would override the "thou 
shalt not kill" bit.

But then, that would seem pretty absolute too. I guess some would argue 
you *should* kill the witch, some would argue you *shouldn't* kill the 
witch, so yah, OK, I guess there's some other context there. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   How could it not be context-dependent?
> 
>> I dunno. Maybe because HE'S GOD!?  ;-)
> 
>   I honestly don't understand. Because the one who sends the message is God,
> then there cannot be context of the message anylonger? 

No. Because the one who sends the message is God, the message should be 
understandable to anyone alive. Especially when there are only two 
people alive.

You haven't explained to me what context there was in the garden of eden 
that wasn't taken into account.

> Because the one who
> sends the message is God it should be possible to rip off a few words of
> the message and still maintain the whole meaning of the message?

What "few words"?  What context do you think "thou shalt not kill" has 
that isn't embodied in the old testament?

>   You can't rip off a few words of a long message and expect it to
> preserve its meaning. It's just impossible.

So explain the "long message" of the ten commandments to me?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   You can't rip off a few words of a long message and expect it to
> preserve its meaning. It's just impossible.

I think these two sentences of yours can stand on their own.  I'd say you can
expect a portion of a longer message to preserve its meaning *if* you're
careful/mindful of just how much context is required.  In this case the context
which is not included in those two sentences is the fact that this thread is (of
late) talking about passages from the Bible.  It's still possible and reasonable
to agree or disagree with the statements without that context. Upon hearing the
context 'Bible passages' a person might start responding with their general
view of the Bible (literal/alegorical/etc).  However, the context would then be
more of a distraction to whether a person fundamentally agrees with the
specific statement which is obviously meant as a general statement - a truth, a
premise to bring back into the larger conversation.

In case I wasn't clear, my point is that I think it's possible. :-)

>
>   I think that's one of the definitions of a straw man

By contrast here is a selection of a few words from a longer message which *do*
need more context to be a complete idea.

Charles

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   You can't rip off a few words of a long message and expect it to
> > preserve its meaning. It's just impossible.

> So explain the "long message" of the ten commandments to me?

  1) Studying the ten commandments with everything the Bible has to offer
would require an entire book.

  2) You don't care anyways, so why even bother?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message