You asked what i mean by this, some say Joshua shouldn't have killed the children (assuming he did and i assume he did) of the cities he conquered (book of joshua old testament), had he not killed them the parents would have a strange conversation with their adopted children when they became teenagers. Also child sacrifice was common among amorites in canaan as well as in ancient iraq. Hammurabi was actually an amorite just in case you didn't know. — christian2017
If you would like me to go on and on about the culture of canaan i can. Territories in history have certainly been conquered over much lesser crimes. — christian2017
If you disagree with these things in that you don't find them to be corruption, either my concept of reality is severely flawed or yours is and there is no point in us trying to convince each otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point we get into a discussion about post-modernism. — christian2017
But as others have pointed out, the corruption of religious institutions is a fact of history; I think as soon as something becomes an institution, then it implements a power-structure, and wherever there's power, there's the possibility of corruption. — Wayfarer
There is no detached, objective or scientific way to determine it. — Wayfarer
from the viewpoint of secular culture, it's impossible to make value judgements about the overall veracity of different religions - say, scientology, Santeria, and Catholicism. — Wayfarer
However, often when people do that sort of justifying, they present specific passages from their holy book. So how do you know that what they present as justification for their actions is not what the actual author of the text meant, or would nonetheless condone? — Pinprick
Does this mean you accept your belief on faith? — Pinprick
Maybe, but it would depend on Gods definition of “good.” Who’s to say God doesn’t consider what we call atrocities good (except for the contradictory founders of these religions)? — Pinprick
You asked what i mean by this, some say Joshua shouldn't have killed the children (assuming he did and i assume he did) of the cities he conquered (book of joshua old testament), had he not killed them the parents would have a strange conversation with their adopted children when they became teenagers. Also child sacrifice was common among amorites in canaan as well as in ancient iraq. Hammurabi was actually an amorite just in case you didn't know.
— christian2017
I see. I’m not interested in the justification, or lack there of, of Joshua’s actions.
If you would like me to go on and on about the culture of canaan i can. Territories in history have certainly been conquered over much lesser crimes.
— christian2017
That’s not necessary.
If you disagree with these things in that you don't find them to be corruption, either my concept of reality is severely flawed or yours is and there is no point in us trying to convince each otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if at this point we get into a discussion about post-modernism.
— christian2017
I’m not trying to move into post-modernist territory. I agree that the things you mentioned are bad, but bad doesn’t equal corrupt, at least not in my view. I see corruption to mean something like changing the meaning of what a particular holy book/passage/ doctrine says so that it suits your needs. Pretending to be doing “God’s will,” but actually pursuing your own selfish needs. The problem is we can’t simply ask the authors what they meant, so it is left for the rest of us to interpret. Also, there is the problem of contradictory passages in religions texts. One passage says “love thy neighbor,” while others promote violence, such as the one Bitter Crank provided above. Some followers practice the former, while some practice the latter. So which group is corrupt, and which is not? Each group will just point the finger at the other group, and, as @Wayfarer mentioned, there is no objective way to settle the dispute. Do you have a solution?
Also, I promise my comments are sincere. If my questions seem stupid it is due to my lack of understanding. I simply ask because I want to learn.
10 hours ago
Pinprick
96
But as others have pointed out, the corruption of religious institutions is a fact of history; I think as soon as something becomes an institution, then it implements a power-structure, and wherever there's power, there's the possibility of corruption.
— Wayfarer
I essentially agree with this. However, I’m questioning how you, or anyone else, can know that these power grabs that you’re describing aren’t the intended consequences of the founder of the religion? I assume that these theocrats would provide some scripture to justify their actions. Just as I assume that that there would be scripture against their actions. The inherent contradictions in these texts is a big part of the issue.
There is no detached, objective or scientific way to determine it.
— Wayfarer
Then you accept that your claim that religions have been corrupted is only an opinion? If not, on what do you base your belief upon?
from the viewpoint of secular culture, it's impossible to make value judgements about the overall veracity of different religions - say, scientology, Santeria, and Catholicism.
— Wayfarer
Isn’t calling a religion corrupt a value judgment? — Pinprick
Here's a short argument:
1. God is all good (goodness which we're familiar with)
2. The holy books are god's words
3. if the holy books are god's words then the holy books don't have mistakes
4. The holy books don't have mistakes (2, 3 modus tollens)
5. If god commands killing then, either the holy books have mistakes or god is not all good
6. The holy books don't have mistakes and god is all good (1, 4 conjunction)
7. god doesn't command killing (5, 6 modus tollens)
8. Either god commands killing or we've misunderstood the holy books (we've misread some lines as orders to kill)
9. We've misunderstood the holy books (7, 8 disjunctive syllogism) — TheMadFool
1 is unknowable, because the evidence for it (the holy books) is suspect. The goodness we’re all familiar with doesn’t include endorsing murder, etc. Also, if you’re going to come to the conclusion that we’ve misinterpreted the holy books regarding the endorsement of murder, you could just as easily say that we’ve misinterpreted them regarding the goodness of God.
9 isn’t true. The holy books have been interpreted in multiple ways, therefore someone got it right. The question is who.
You could just as easily make the opposite argument using the same evidence.
1 becomes “God is all bad”
5 becomes “If God commands love thy neighbor then...
6 becomes “The holy books don’t have mistakes and God is all bad.”
7 becomes “God doesn’t command love thy neighbor.“
8 becomes “Either God commands love thy neighbor... — Pinprick
Imagine if we come into contact with super-intelligent aliens who've mastered intergalactic space travel. If in a conversation with them, you notice what appears to be an "inconsistency" would you doubt them or yourself? — TheMadFool
bear in mind that god is both all-good and of infinite intellect and, ergo, you should be leaning towards an answer that factors in the intelligence-gap between us, humans and god viz. that the fault lies in us and that we've misunderstood god's words as it appears in the holy books. — TheMadFool
Wouldn’t them being “super-intelligent” depend on their ability to be consistent? Or better yet, their ability to communicate effectively without inconsistencies being perceived by the listener? Regardless, I would ask them to clarify what they meant. — Pinprick
How would I know that God is all good and all knowing? You seem to be insisting that I assume this, but the only evidence that suggests this (holy books) is precisely what is being questioned. Besides, wouldn’t the assumption of an intelligence gap make assuming about God’s character unreasonable? If he is so much further advanced than I am, how could I possibly guess at his intentions? — Pinprick
You're begging the question by assuming that the aliens are being inconsistent and we've discovered the inconsistency. I'm only asking you to consider the other possibility - there is no inconsistency at all and what we see as one is the result of our limited minds grappling with god's genius par excellence. — TheMadFool
Yes, I am insisting that you don't reject the following:
1. God's onmibenevolence
2. The veracity of the holy books — TheMadFool
If you choose not to accept the two assumptions above my argument is garbage. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.