tk102 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 And of course the ones held by others who affect you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 7, 2007 Author Share Posted March 7, 2007 Hey, Are we talking about the credibility of religious claims (i.e. the truthfulness of the religious assertions) or the credibility of the religion itself (i.e. that a certain set of beliefs can be described as a religion)? I guess I interpreted the question as the latter. My apologies. The question was closer to the former rather than the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 There's one other thing I thought of that gives religion relevency: laws. It is said laws were created so that we follow the code of what society's religion is. The degregation of women for example, that is so because their religion says so, and it is made law that women have many of their rights stripped away. In the society most of us would be familiar with our laws mirror many of the Ten Commandments, such as 'Though shalt not steal\kill\commit adultry'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Do atheist countries have laws? If yes, then your argument that laws make religion relevant immediately falls flat. FWIW, the oldest known complete set of laws is the Code of Hammurabi. It predates Christianity by a couple thousand years. Â As for how religion impacts how women are treated under our laws, I'd recommend that you look to the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Achilles is correct, but I think it's important to remember that this whole "is religion relevant" tangent is- in my estimation- an off-topic irrelevance at best, and a thread-hijack at worst. The original post and stated thread topic concerns itself with the question: should religious theistic claims be given any credence, and if so, why? (Please forgive my presumptuous reiteration of your query, Achilles) Â It never posed the question: "what qualifies as a religion", nor "are religions relevant to society". Â A belief that the earth is flat can, I suppose, be termed "relevant" to society, in that such a belief can affect the behaviour of those that hold it, and in turn their behaviour can affect society. But that's so obvious that it doesn't bear discussion. A more pertinent question would be "SHOULD religious beliefs be regarded as relevant to society?" and of course the answer to that would be "No, because they're blatantly delusional." But once again, that's another discussion entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Thanks for getting us back on topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Faith is belief without evidence. I think that pretty much ended the discussion of should religious theistic claims be given any credence, since to be credible, you must have proof for your arguments. Thanks for getting us back on topic Kind of a non-topic though. Â Really we're talking about two different parts of a human psyche -- reason and emotion and never the twain shall meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 This Link Speacks for itself! (Ckicky) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Kind of a non-topic though. In all fairness, you're probably right. I found it interesting that I raised the question 3 or 4 times, after which the other parties became much too busy with other things to continue the conversation. If I should take that as acceptance that there is no rational reason to be religious, then I guess I had hoped to learn why people would choose to be irrational. Perhaps there are no answers to my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I'm not aware of any Atheist dominent countries, but religion being the basis of laws was something I heard. Maybe in some societies. Some evidence to this can be shown that until recently homosexuality was illegal, and we all know how much that is spoken against. But what do I know, I'm a crazy torture for fun bitch that supports terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 @Moderators: Should this be broken out into a new thread? Â @Nancy: Didn't you use the former USSR and China as examples earlier? If you consider non-theistic belief systems to be atheistic, then I suppose that you could also count Japan, Tibet, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Korea, etc. All of those countries have laws, last time I checked. Â Yes, the Bible (both OT and NT) and the Qu'ran give us some laws, but some of these laws (thou shalt not murder) contain moral precepts that can and do exist outside of religion (Kant's categorical imperative quickly tells us that murder is wrong). Others, like "homosexuality is a sin" or "death to those that work on the Sabbath" exist only within our holy books, but have absolutely no moral weight outside of them. To summarize, yes we get some laws from religion, but the ones that make sense don't require religion, and the ones that require religion make no sense. Â Your argument regarding the legalization of homosexuality reminds me a great deal of the abolishionist movement. Liberal Christians using the word of God to free slaves that Conservative Christians believed the word of God told them they could have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That's right, I remember hearing about God condoning slavery. I think we can all be happy that it's been abolished, or at least shown for how wrong it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 8, 2007 Author Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah and unless God slipped in a version 2.0 that I haven't seen, you can go down to any church and still find the specific passages that advocate slavery in the Bible. Â Odd that we can us reason against God to abolish something that is clearly immoral, but that same reason fails us (in many cases) when trying to apply rationale to God himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 There's meant to be respect between the two apparently. But if that was the case wouldn't it be servitude rather than slavery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 There's meant to be respect between the two apparently. But if that was the case wouldn't it be servitude rather than slavery?Hmm...I didn't walk away with that impression at all. That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. Luke 12:47-48 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Exodus 21:20-21 There are others passages that are less hostile, but still clearly show that slaves were property with no more value than oxen or asses (donkeys). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 That was from reading questions about why slavery was condoned, but yeah I think it's safe to say we're better off that it's something that is no longer tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Yes, indeed it is a good thing that we are able to pick and choose which scriptures God really wants us to heed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 I don't think that's the case, I believe it says you have to follow the scripture fully, even if Christians don't say you do. And laws override it as well, so again it's a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 I see that "subtle" doesn't work very well here. Â Let me try that again: If the Bible advocates slavery and the Bible is the word of God and God is the source of our morals, who are we do decide whether or not slavery is ok? It seems that we risk incurring God's wrath by failing to take slaves. Â If we have the inerrant word of God at our fingertips, don't you think we should be following that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ah I get what you're saying now. Â There are many things that is said that are not practiced today, in fact Christians would most likely oppose slavery. No wonder there is confusion where people condemn what it says in their religion. Â Though on the other hand what I think it's saying here is that slavery isn't condemned, but by the same token it's not pushing the idea either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ok, if slavery is too slippery (i.e. not specific enough) perhaps God's views on the proper role of women is more concrete. Any thoughts there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Oh definetly. Not only don't I believe in women being subjugated to men there are those who still believe today that is how it should be. I could rant and rave about this all day but all I'll say is that men will be equal to women only when they can stand to being kicked between the legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Alright, and now that you've demonstrated your strong feeling on that topic, apply it to the earlier example (msg #44). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Allen`` Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Slavery is wrong, ask most any Christian that, however that as well as subjugation of women is in scripture. Because it's wrong in today's world does it make it not applicable? I'm not sure but I think that's a source of great debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Agreed. Did you intend to answer the question or are you comfortable simply acknowledging that it's a conundrum for believers and leaving it at that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.