The bible fails egregiously in terms of moral values. Within its books ethnic cleansing, genocide, patriarchy-misogyny-marital rape, homophobia, slavery, authoritarianism, self-abnegation, poverty-masochism, neurotic guilt, superstition, scapegoating (purgitive lynching), vicarious redemption via human sacrifice, denialism, etc are advocated and even in some cases ritually memorialized. Bronze Age barbarism co-opted by – transfigured into – Iron Age statecraft. — 180 Proof

This is what I meant by how Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were limited by extant social, cultural, political paradigms. They all had a vision of greatness - a being/state of perfection which they called Yahweh, God, Allah - but this idea of greatness was, in a way, severely constrained by the environment in which it was born.

It's quite apparent, if one gives it some thought, that religion was/is a reaction to the familiar misery of human existence - all the myriad ways in which we could be and were/are inconsiderate, selfish, greedy, hateful, etc., in short evil/bad - and what is really depressing about it all is that all these alleged prophets ended up endorsing the very practices (your list above) that they should've been condemning.

At this point what I'd like to do is offer a suggestion; don't take it as an indictment of religion itself but as an unsurprising case of man's imperfect nature. We can't throw out a good idea just because the person who thought of it wasn't, and the people who adopted it weren't, perfect exemplars of whatever that idea is.

My take on religion, at least in the way it's presented in the preceding paragraphs, seems to hint at, if not openly assert that, religion is man-made. What else explains the many flaws, suspiciously human-like, that litter the theological landscape? However, for me, even if I'm severely rebuked for it, the very fact that someone, that too in the bronze age during which people probably had other pressing matters to deal with, took the pains to think of a ethics/morality, its complexities notwithstanding, redeems all the flaws religions suffers from. It's a feat as miraculous as a blind man acquiring the power of sight.

Thus, even if it's true that "The Bible fails egregiously in terms of moral values" it mustn't be forgotten that it counts as one of the first steps made by humanity into the world of morality/ethics and that being so, mistakes should be the norm rather than the exception. The Bible means something - it's a record of the pioneers of morality - and for that it must be given its due recognition/respect/admiration.

Agreed.

And yeah, I subscribe to absurdism (Zapffe/Camus) with respect to moral judgment, though the 'genealogy' of my ethical naturalism (e.g. Spinoza, Peirce-Dewey, Philippa Foot) begins with epicureanism and then extends through spinozism with refining detours through humeanism, nietzscheanism & pragmaticism. Immanence sans transcendence (i.e. cranes, not sky-hooks). Moses & Jesus, Plato & Augustine have nothing to teach that isn't 'otherworldly' (i.e. nihil as per F.N.), or, as Dennett might say a 'sky-hook' for tyrants and other (malignant, bad faith) fantasties. — 180 Proof

Bravo!

... we - humans - are the ethical foundation of the universe.
I'm not gonna leap off that faith-heap with you, Fool. Not only doesn't this statement follow from your naturalist observations, but Nature, of which we're a part, long precedes and far exceeds 'human existence' so much so that saying we're it's "foundation" (of any kind) is like saying birds gliding on the wind are the aerodynamic foundation of the sky or mating fish are the procreative foundation of the sea. :sweat: This 'immanent sky-hook' you're desperately grasping at, Mad Fool, is oxymoronic and anachronistically violates the mediocrity principle. — 180 Proof

I don't see the point of denying an obvious fact - morality was born in the human mind, perhaps heart is a better word. Before humanity entered the world stage good and bad didn't exist. Nature, as we know it, is red in tooth and claw, the law of the jungle is a no-holds-barred fight to the death. In other words, like it or not, we, humans, are the foundation of morality, we're the representatives of good in the world, we're the source of goodness, we're the torchbearers who bring or, more accurately, are supposed to bring light into an otherwise dark universe.

Perhaps your resistance to the idea that humans are the foundation of morality arises from the fact that humans, despite how I've presented them above, are also the worst offenders - no other living organism can be attributed with as much needless violence and cruelty than humans. I have no choice but to accept this of course but at the same time you'll have to concede the fact that no other living organism has a sense of right and wrong, the so-called moral compass is distinctly human. Thus, drawing from the latter half of the preceding sentence, I take the position that humans are the foundation of morality, we are the moral face of the universe.

Perhaps your resistance to the idea that humans are the foundation of morality arises from the fact that humans, despite how I've presented them above, are also the worst offenders ... — TheMadFool

No. I'm resistant to your claim, Fool, because (a) it's incoherent and (b) is inconsistent with the mediocrity principle without sufficient warrant.

Thus, even if it's true that "The Bible fails egregiously in terms of moral values" it mustn't be forgotten that it counts as one of the first steps made by humanity into the world of morality/ethics ...

So what? Astrology was "one of the first" attempts to explain the world in terms of the wider, encompassing cosmos. Nonetheless it's useless for scientific or ethical inquiry. Like biblical religion.

The story I prefer to tell myself is one of metacultural development from mythos (infancy) to logos (adolescence) to ethos (adulthood) to philosophos (maturity) ... such that biblical religion aka "divine, or sovereign, right" is nothing but atavistic, infantilizing, (therefore eusocially effective at religare) mythology. Doesn't ethics as a secular discourse begin with the dialectic of mythos & logos, or the latter as critique-epochē of the former?

No. I'm resistant to your claim, Fool, because (a) it's incoherent and (b) is inconsistent with the mediocrity principle without sufficient warrant.

Thus, even if it's true that "The Bible fails egregiously in terms of moral values" it mustn't be forgotten that it counts as one of the first steps made by humanity into the world of morality/ethics ...
So what? Astrology was "one of the first" attempts to explain the world in terms of the wider, encompassing cosmos. Nonetheless it's useless for scientific or ethical inquiry. Like biblical religion.

The story I prefer to tell myself is one of metacultural development from mythos (infancy) to logos (adolescence) to ethos (adulthood) to philosophos (maturity) ... such that biblical religion aka "divine, or sovereign, right" is nothing but atavistic, infantilizing, (therefore eusocially effective at religare) mythology. Doesn't ethics as a secular discourse begin with the dialectic of mythos & logos, or the latter as critique-epochē of the former? — 180 Proof

I'm simply pointing out that the the beginning of anything, including ethics, will consist of missteps, faltering, stumbling, fumbling, teetering and tottering and this rather colorful description fits religion like a glove does it not? Doesn't religion look like a clumsy attempt at ethical philosophy? It does to me and so there's nothing surprising let alone shocking or appalling about the results - a poor performance on the part of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, was simply unavoidable and the reasons for that could be that they, in a way, themselves stumbled upon the subject of ethics and they had nothing to go on but their intuitions - philosophizing was never a part of their world so, couldn't be brought to bear on what were probably simple gut-instincts on ethics.

Doesn't religion look like a clumsy attempt at ethical philosophy? — TheMadFool

Nope. See either Socrates or Confucius for a "clumsy attempt" at ethics. Religion never makes an "attempt" in so far as philosophy raises questions from aporia, or dilemmas, where as scriptures, like myths, tell stories that purport to resolve all moral questions with (divine) "Mysteries" which, of course, merely beg the question (e.g. g/G says "do not bear false witness" ... ok but why? ... Because it's "the will of" g/G (Plato's Euthyphro)), or, in other words, just gaslighting whomever about whatever's at issue. Biblical religion doesn't "attempt" ethics, or philosophy, because in order to cultivate abject credulity in gullible masses its sermons need only massage somnambulent "belief" and avoid provoking thinking for oneself (i.e. reflective inquiry).

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? — 1 Corinthians 1:18-20, KJV

I've generally not seen theism as providing ethics or moral thinking at all but it does have commandments or codes of conduct, which are vastly different and no more than traffic lights to obey.

Remember, those mitzvahs were canonized by the Solomonic temple priesthood (Pharisees?) during the Babylonian Captivity of the Isrealites and their regime. The Tanakh was produced in a very political albeit aristcratic milieu and not by mendicant scribes in desert caves or prophets crying out in the wilderness. As I understand it, lasting 'holy writ' is the effect (or rationization) of sovereignty and not the cause (or justification) of sovereignty.

ok but why? — 180 Proof

This, my friend, is the right question. Morality doesn't make sense even for the best philosophers as you must already know.

Let's get the facts straight. We know, almost to the point of certainty, what to do and what not to do. The evidence for that comes from ubiquitous moral codes we have at our disposal even though we seem rather reluctant in following them and this reluctance which sometimes takes the form of open rebellion if I may describe it as such is telling. For my money, such a state of affairs comes about for the simple reason that we have no good answer to your/the question, "ok but why?"

This is not to say that people haven't tried answering that question. However, for mutliple reasons the answers have failed to do their job. This, I suppose, means something too but from where I stand it looks like we're going to open up a can of worms and I, for one, am not in the mood for helminths at the moment.

That's about all I'm willing to say at this moment. Have a good day. I'll get back to you when I can, if I can.

You've lost me a bit with that (rhetorical) non sequitur, but ok. To be continued whenever.

You've lost me a bit with that (rhetorical) non sequitur, but ok. To be continued whenever. — 180 Proof

It's not a non sequitur. There's little to disagree on when it comes to the matter of the prophets of the Abrahamic triad being pioneers in ethics in re the existing moral paradigms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That can't be denied unless these three religions are not about morality (something worth exploring) or that Moses has nothing to do with Judaism, Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity, and that Mohammed has nothing to do with Islam.

I am an atheist and never read the bible. Not in full. It is inhumane to do that. The bible may be a strong starting point against theism, and it definitely pits the impossibility of scriptures' claims against a reasoned faith. But atheism is more, it is the belief there is / are no god(s), while the bible will teach you that there is no Christian / Jewish god, at least not in the form and description the scriptures claim how god is. The bible will not be a guide to decry Montezuma, or Zeus, or Hera, or Apollo, or Xi, or Ti, or Mi, of Fi, or Bi. The Sun god may well be alive and well even if you read the bible, and so can the horned monster of Krete, the Minotaur (and its giant counterpart, the Maxotaur.)

Do you suppose that the Abrahmic religions are not about morality and are about something else entirely and we've completely missed the point of these faiths. I'm considering the possibility of morality being only incidental, a side show of sorts, for these religions and the real message is something else.

We've, for reasons such as our own plight in a universe that's indifferent to the misery of our condition, latched onto moral aspect of these religions and failed to see the real import contained therein.

Let's get the facts straight. We know, almost to the point of certainty, what to do and what not to do. — TheMadFool

I wish that were true.

I wish that were true. — Tom Storm

Speaking relatively of course. Requesting for a charitable interpretation of my words.

Think of it, the Bible touches upon subjects as mutually exclusive, apparently, as sexuality and cosmology; that, if anything, suggests that the authors of the Bible intended to have a finger in every pie so to speak. The idea was to present some unified understanding of the world as was then and even beyond, I definitely see an attempt to "...reach for the stars..." In other words, there's room in the Bible for an interpretation that it's purpose was, no matter how flawed, to offer a theory of everything. Morality was/is, can be thought of as, just a chapter in that book. A similar argument may apply to other holy books except, intriguingly, Buddhist ones.

I've generally not seen theism as providing ethics or moral thinking at all but it does have commandments or codes of conduct, which are vastly different and no more than traffic lights to obey. — Tom Storm

Nicely worded.

For

I wish that were true. — Tom Storm

to muse over.

↪180 Proof Do you suppose that the Abrahmic religions are not about morality and are about something else entirely and we've completely missed the point of these faiths. — TheMadFool

Yes and no. :naughty:

Yes Abrahamic religions are not "about morality" but about – Kierkegaard is instructive here – "the teleological suspension of the ethical" or, in lay terms, obeying the "will" (PLAN) of the ALMIGHTY as "revealed" through (HIS) CHOSEN "messengers" "messiahs" & "martyrs"; why would only (#6-9) four out of ten of the "Commandments" on Mt. Sinai have to do with morality (as well as the vast majority of the other "600+ mitzvahs" throughout Numbers Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc say nothing moral) if 'Abrahamic faith' was "about morality"? And why these (generic) four moral rules which must have predated Mt Sinai as indispensable cultural norms for maintaining (ANY) large social groups as Hebrew tribes "wandering together for 40 years" had to have been (if only by implication of the story)?

:halo:

And no "we" haven't "missed the point of these faiths" as evidenced by countless "divinely inspired" decrees of their respective clerics (or holy lunatics aka "prophets") which have for millennia lustfully launched, and thereby have been servilely executed BY THE OBEDIENTLY FAITHFUL, persecutions, library burnings, inquisitions, crusades, jihads, heresy witch hunts/trials, slave trading, conquests (via forced conversions, ethnic cleansing, genocides), ad hoc justifications of all manners of tyranny & state sanctioned atrocities, schismatic bloodbaths, official murders for "blasphemy" and on and on. GOD'S WILL OR DIE (& BURN IN HELL). Haven't you heard, brothers & sisters – "the truth shall set you free" John 8:32 (à la arbeit macht frei):

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Obedience is doing what is told regardless of what is right. — sayeth THE SAGE OF BALTIMORE

Inshallah ... Im yirtze hashem ... Deus vult ... :pray:

You're damn right! Amen. :fire:

Yes Abrahamic religions are not "about morality" but about – Kierkegaard is instructive here – "the teleological suspension of the ethical" or, in lay terms, obeying the "will" (PLAN) of the ALMIGHTY — 180 Proof

This is clear even in the holy books. Simple divine command theory. I find it telling that God commands his people not to wear mixed fabrics or to eat shellfish but is fine with slavery. So we could add it is the divine command theory of a moral monster.

:up:

Some people find the Bible so comforting, but I find it the exact opposite. — Jack Cummins

Why are criticisms directed only at Christianity?

Quran, page 24, verse 5, The Dogma of Islam:

"In addition to the truths that the Muslim must believe, there are five duties that are prescribed for him: prayer, fasting, paying the tribute of the poor, pilgrimage to Mecca and holy war."

Removing passages from the Quran in which its fundamentalism and incompatibility with the West is explicit is Islamophobia, or facts? If you still have questions:

Quran, page 28, verse 4, The Style of the Quran:

"The world of the Quran is a male world. God speaks to men and speaks to him of women."

It is easy to criticize the religion that created the whole world that supports your freedom to come here to criticize that same religion.

It is difficult to criticize the strange enemy who, if catches you doing it, will end your existence.

I am definitely not criticising Christianity above all religions. My comment about people finding comfort in Christianity is based on the tradition I was raised in. Also, this particular thread was about the Bible.

Actually, I am interested in the whole discussion of comparative religion and my own thread on religion was meant to be general but the majority of people who engaged in discussion with me focused upon Christianity. Strangely, no one discussed Islam. Personally, I have never felt drawn towards Islam but I am not against it. I have friends who are Muslim and they are very open minded people. I think that stereotypes around terrorism do a lot of harm to perceptions of Islam.

Really, I am not against religion in general, but more interested in the esoteric side of religion, including Christianity, and the aspect of Islam which I would like to read more about is Sufism.

Actually, I am interested in the whole discussion of comparative religion and my own thread on religion was meant to be general but the majority of people who engaged in discussion with me focused upon Christianity. Strangely, no one discussed Islam. Personally, I have never felt drawn towards Islam but I am not against it. I have friends who are Muslim and they are very open minded people. I think that stereotypes around terrorism do a lot of harm to perceptions of Islam. — Jack Cummins

The same arguments used against Christianity can be used against Islam.

If your friends are Muslims, but do not follow the words spoken in their holy book - Quran -, they are not true Muslims.

Most likely, since your friends consider themselves Muslims, they would agree with this passage from the Quran, wouldn't they:

Quran, chapter 4, verse 34, The Women:

"Men have authority over women for what God has made them superior to and because they spend their possessions to support them. Good wives are obedient and keep their virtue in the absence of their husband as God has established. Those of whom you fear rebellion, exhort them, banish them from your bed and beat them. If they obey you, do not bother them anymore. God is high and great."

I really think you don't agree with this kind of thought...

(Indeed, I'm with my Quran in hands for this discussion)

OBS: I was not focusing on your sayings Jack. I used your comment to say what I wanted to say to everyone in the forum that acts like they know everything about religion, but only criticizes Christianity.

It is an interesting area of discussion and I have never discussed this side of Islam with the specific people who I know. The area I live in, Tooting, is Asian dominated, with a mix of Hindu and Muslim people, so I mix with Muslims on a daily basis. I really don't know how the fundamentalist aspects of the religion affect their lives. Muslim women and girls don't seem particularly oppressed. I imagine that it comes down to the cultural interpretation of the views.

I have to admit that I have never read any of the Quran. That is because I struggled enough with the Bible when I was a teenager, worrying about hell and damnation. The fear of hell is a bit separate from the political aspects of religion, although the ideas such as hell can be used to back up all kinds of political oppression. But, generally I see religious fundamentalism as a form of oppression.

Apart from Madfool's discussion about women's dress, Islam doesn't seem to be discussed much on the forum. I am not sure why.

Apart from Madfool's discussion about women's dress, Islam doesn't seem to be discussed much on the forum. I am not sure why. — Jack Cummins

Many of the pseudophilosophers who are part of this forum, insist on not touching on the subject of Islam precisely because they know that if the dogmas of this religion are debated, their views of "multiculturalism", "globalization", "integration of non-natives", etc... falls apart, because when you know the Islamic history, and about the theology of the Quran itself, it becomes explicit that the religion is not compatible with the West.

And therefore, if this religion is not compatible with the West, and they continue to defend its entering, they are not concerned with the good of the people under the regime of the religion, but with the political power that that religion provides.

A censorship tactic on their part that is easy to perceive is the use of the concept of "Islamophobia", which does not exist. What really exists is "cultural conservatism".

I think that you are correct to say that religion provides political power. I probably have not read that much about Islam to know its compatibility with the West. As I am living in a part of London where I am surrounded by Islamic people, shops and a mosque, I do wonder how it works, and I don't know. Perhaps the Muslims censor themselves in what they say, including what they reveal to me. So, on the forum and in real life there are probably many areas of conspicuous silence.

The best way to become an atheist is to read the Bible — Dan Barker
A penny for your thoughts. — TheMadFool

I became a Non-Theist from reading the Bible with a skeptical eye. But I later became an Agnostic after my introduction to nuanced philosophical thinking in college. Eventually, I became a Deist, due to the inherent evolutionary logic of Physics & Biology. Finally, I became an Enformationist after putting all of the above together.

Sorry, that progressive sequence of events is not as neat & simplistic as Barker's two-step epigram. Perhaps the complications resulted from combining self-doubt with Skepticism, in order to avoid the pitfall of Cynicism. That's my two-cents worth. :yikes:

Enformationism : all is Information; all is Mind; Enformation is energy + laws