Bravo! Any visit, even a short one, by you is always valuable.Plotinus said:
Does morality require religious beliefs?
- Thread starter carlosMM
- Start date
I disagree. They all could be wrong. Or they could all be imperfectly right, distorted, corrupted versions of a single truth that encompasses them all.Stapel said:
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
A few weeks ago, there was a thread (I can't remember the title, it had something to do with homosexuality) in which I gave precise verse references for all of these things. My post in that thread was a direct response to one of yours, so I assumed you had read it.
These commandments are all given in the Book of Leviticus. You're the Bible expert-- you tell me where they are. I've already posted them once, and I don't have time to find the references again.
EDIT: I found my notes with some of the references:
Leviticus 25:44 says you should possess slaves from the "heathen that are round about you".
The detailed instructions on how we must build a tabernacle and sacrifice bulls and lambs and turtledoves to God are presented Leviticus 1-10.
Dietary law (kosher) is laid out in Chapter 11.
Exodus 35:2 describes the sabbath and states that he who "doeth work therein shall be put to death".
Leviticus 19:19 forbids the breeding of cattle "with a diverse kind", the sowing of fields with "mingled seed", and "a garment mingled of linen and woollen".
Leviticus 24:16 orders that any who blaspheme against God "shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him".
According to Leviticus 20:14, the penalty for sleeping with one's mother-in-law is that all three "shall be burnt with fire".
That should settle that, I hope.
Regarding interpretation: carlosMM has already seen the point I was making. To rationalise kosher away as a practical (and now irrelevant) matter, or to say that Jesus eliminates the need for bovine sacrifice, or anything like this, is to interpret the Bible according to your wishes. If you can do it with these bits, I can do it with whatever bits I want.
Beyond this, there is also the linguistic point: all of the different forms of the Bible have been interpreted. They can't all be guided by Holy Spirit, because they produce radically different meanings at some points.
If you're still not convinced, I'll give a simple example of the need for interpretation.
Exodus 2:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
What does this mean? What is a witch, and how will I know one when I see one? If I want to follow God's law, I have to arrange the death of every witch I am aware of, so erring on the side of caution and allowing even one witch free will get me into trouble with God. There must exist an exact definition of witch, a criterion by which God intends us to execute or murder people. What is it? God doesn't tell us, so we have to interpret what this passage means. By "witch", does it mean someone who I've seen casting spells? people who call themselves witches? people whom my neighbour accuses of being witches? people with warts? people who wear black?
You see where it leads. There is no such thing as following the Bible without "interpretation", because you can only follow it according to what you take its meaning to be.
Tautology is just saying that A = A. If I define seals as insects, for example, and then deliver a multi-step argument showing that seals are insects, the argument is worthless because it doesn't prove anything, it just reflects the assumptions. My point is that you seemed to be arguing that objective morals exist, therefore God exists, therefore objective morals exist. But I initially posted without reading all of the previous posts, so I took for argument what was just stating your opinion. So, essentially, never mind.Mauer said:Big words don't scare me away my friend. It's late, and I don't feel like scrutinizing to make sense of it, but please expound on what you mean by circular reasoning. Also, I am not trying to convince others to have my same faith (in this post anyways). I merely thought I was giving my opinion... so there
When you sacrifice bulls, what product do you use do get the smell out of your house? I'm just curious, because last time I did it, the neighbours complained. Mind you, they also complained when I stoned their son to death for saying "Goddamn" under his breath, so I'm not sure I should listen to them.Mauer said:
Mr. Blonde said:
I hate to say it, but dictionaries are not the sole source of knowledge. However many you cite, most people who have actually studied religion would disagree with you. I again cite Don Cupitt, a famous religious writer - indeed a priest - who has written many books passionately arguing for a version of Christianity that involves no metaphysical claims whatsoever, even an objective God. He may be right or wrong to do so, but his mere existence as a religious person who lacks such beliefs disproves the notion that religion must necessarily involve them. That's quite apart from citing Theravada Buddhism, Confucianism, and the rest. We normally think of religion as involving the supernatural simply because most religions - at least most of those familiar to us in the West - do. But it's still not strictly accurate.
As TLC pointed out, I don't think that belief in the abstract entails religious or indeed metaphysical claims - I was describing such a position as an extreme one and the only one I could imagine in which it would make sense to say that moral claims are necessarily religious. I wish I hadn't now!
[Birdjaguar] Thank you - it is nice to be appreciated on occasion! This is the point at which I should plug my book, but they'd probably ban me... ;-)
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
How could a such vision possibly be called a version if Christianity? It sounds about like a Capitalist calling for an end to private property ...Plotinus said:
A book! If you won't post the info or link, then please PM with it.Plotinus said:
Blasphemous
Graulich
I'm not too sure.The Last Conformist said:
I'm far too tired (and unfocused on this issue) to go into detail but I can imagine Christianity reduced to something that does not require an absolute deity. Christians are always going on about behaving in a Christian way, I'm sure the religion can be refined to focus on that more than on all of the god stuff.
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Christianity means follower of Christ...Christ was the son of God. No Christ, no Christianity.
It's probably possible to follow Christ as "The Way, the Truth, and the Light" without ever bringing God into it. One way would be to interpret (there's that word again...) Christ as "the Christian principle" rather than the physically existent being named Jesus, so that to follow His Way would be much the same as following The Way (Taoism) or subscribing to Platonism.
Combine Jesus' philosophy (such as it is), good/moral works, and faith in the existence and attainability of spiritual truth, and I don't see any need to put the Abramic God on top of this.
Combine Jesus' philosophy (such as it is), good/moral works, and faith in the existence and attainability of spiritual truth, and I don't see any need to put the Abramic God on top of this.
Mauer
Pompous Noble
Well, there isn't much left to interpretation when you consider that when Jesus refers to "His Father", He is referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Which is quite easily found throughout the 4 Gospels. His reference to the God of Abraham, that is. So your statement that Abrahams God isn't needed for Christianity is indeed incorrect. But, of course you deny the infallibility of these writings.
Blasphemous
Graulich
Just because Abraham's God was the father of Jesus doesn't mean he has to be part of the religion. Especially if you consider Christ to be an ideal (or set of ideals) rather than a person.
Mauer
Pompous Noble
Secular=Christ is an ideal
Non-secular=Christ is risen (a living body)
Non-secular=Christ is risen (a living body)
Sword_Of_Geddon
Arbiter of the Sword
Christ was a person, but he was more than that, he was the son of God himself. There is only one God, and believe me...he exists, remember that
Blasphemous
Graulich
The point is, if a group of people were to interpret Christ as a concept or ideal and not an actual person, and if these people were to believe that their Christ is more important than God who fathered it, would these people not be Christians?Mauer said:
If you say these people are not Christians (as I expect some people here to say), what beliefs or actions exactly are required of a person for them to be considered Christian?
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
Sword_Of_Geddon said:
How about a christianity that believes in a saint christ that is actually just a normal wise man that wanted to influence humanity.
Christianity means follower of Christ -- No Christ, no Christianity. Agreed....
But why does he have to be the son of god
Rhymes
Drive 4 25 is back
Immortal said:
No, its just a thought....
Mauer
Pompous Noble
You assume correctly in that these people are not christians. This is basically a question that was covered in my "other thread" (no spamming hereBlasphemous said:
). I tried looking for the exact response, but couldn't find it. Essentially, it boils down to worshipping the Father by belief in the Son He sent. Much more detail than this. What belief is required to be considered a christian? Well, according to my faith it is in this post. and this one
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Because that's what Christ is.Rhymes said:
You can believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a wise man, whose moral example is worthy of emulation and so on, but not divine. But to believe he was Christ - the Anointed One, the Messiah - you've got to accept the messianic claim.
Similar threads
- Sticky
