Consequences

Remove all ads!

How do you really know that?

 

I agree. The earliest written documents are from Mesopotamia - modern day Iraq IIRC. And, as Babylon was the first civilization to adopt a code of laws, it also make sense that certain things were allowed, and certain other things weren't. I can even stretch my imagination to the limit and say that perhaps the Molekc practice of torching babies was done with some frequency (although it seems to me that sacrificing your first born in a primogeniture societies that existed at the time is counterintuitive to say the least).

However, despite all of this, it defies imagination to say that adultry, rape, incest, and bestiality were "pretty common" at that time. First, I'm assuming by "pretty common" you are comparing that era to some later era. The only way you can make such a claim is if you have statistics from two eras and compare them to see if the prevalence of such things were "pretty common" compared to other eras. And no such statistics exist. To say that they were "pretty common" is just a guess on your part.

 

@HB:
Because He hasn't. As I said, I've had miracles happen in my life. I've seen how bad things could have been. Its not like something has happened where He let me down and I didn't realize it. He's spelled out His promises to me pretty clearly.

@Aldeth
Ok, lets say that the texts and stories treat them as socially accepted norms. These were also nations where an invading nation that won had rightful claim to the land, the people, and everything. Might made right, so what we may concider uncontionable acts of brutality, like rape, were just a 'superior person' acting as he willed. If the father of the raped girl could go out and kill the man, that's ok. If the man's friends then went out and killed the man and his sons, it happened.
As for Moleck, the sacrifice of the first born, regardless of gender was seen as a guarantee that the couple would have sons (more than one) later on. Even in the cultures where inheritance was guaranteed to the eldest male, that's eldest living male, and they believed they were guaranteed more or Molekc was cursing them, so it makes more sense.

 

How?

 

First off, glad to have you back, Gnarff. Don't think that because we're normally arguing over moral issues that I (and many others) didn't miss you.

Trying to pin everything on the removal of religion from public discourse and education is laughable. Despite anything Pat Robertson may have said, Hurricane Katrina didn't happen because God centred a cursor on New Orleans and hit the "Smite" button. While we're at it, we could blame the premature death of Slobodan Milosevic, the Australian Wheat Board bribery scandal and the Iraq war on people turning away from God, too.

There are plenty of terrible things that have been done in the name of religion, but those are the results of human actions, not deus ex machina. Fel's points (most of them) are spot on, IMO - why is it always personal ability and divine Providence when things go right, yet if they don't, it's either a sign of moral decay or "God working in mysterious ways" and never human failings or frailty? It couldn't be because it's just easier to find simple explanations and blame-storm, rather than actually taking the time to examine the entire situation, is it?

Sure, there are some aspects of society that would be better if more people followed more of the "thou shalt not" directives or took elements of the Christian message to heart. They're good ideas; I'm very fond of a lot of them. Of course, taboos against stealing and killing pre-date Christianity by a long way - because they make good sense in any society. The problem is rarely explainable solely by reference to the absence of "good Christian values". People will do as they wish to, and if it's not acceptable under one aspect of their beliefs, they'll find another way to justify it. Unto my experience, there are plenty of "good Christian criminals" out there, along with followers of other religions, atheists and agnostics.

@ NOG - religious faith is a qualitatively different concept to the idea of having faith in something's functionality or another person's abilities, IMO. I'd distinguish them as "conviction" and "trust" - one is based on a personal spiritual belief, the other is typically based on observation, knowledge and experience. I know what you'll say in response to that, and if that's your experience and belief, I can't tell you you're wrong. In defence of my point, though, people can and will read God into anything if they want to (for better or worse) - all they need is a pretext or a need for an excuse.

 

About the same as some of your statements.

But I did not blindly choose to follow it. I believe that the majority of adults that do follow it's teachings do so because they choose to. It's not a blind choice, but usually thought out on some level.

I don't believe that. In fact that seems to be . Unholy and socially deviant are different terms applied. One person calls it unholy while another calls it socially deviant. Nobody said they were the same. I just called it unholy and the Bible calls it an abomination. Read into that what you will, I surely can't stop you...

But that does not give you the right to flash the most offensive of sins in our faces. If a person chooses to be a homosexual (and yes, it is a choice to yield to that temptation or not, just as heterosexual relations with someone outside of marriage is a choice), we ask that it be kept private, and if they bring it out into the open and throw it in our faces, then expect a backlash of criticism. Expect the less intelligent of our number, perhaps even those who blatantly misread the Bible to hate and attack them...

While there are not statistics for such, there is a brief description of the abominations of Sodom and Gamorah in the book of Genesis, around the time of Abraham. These sins and more were rampant in those cities. Such sins were rampant before the Great flood in the time of Noah as well. The references to Molech I believe are later in the Old testament, perhaps in Leviticus, I think Chapter 18, which forbids Homosexuality, incest and Bestiality...

In the scriptures, there are places where certain laws are established and the blessings for obedience are discussed. What NOG is pointing out is that he has observed these blessings for his faithfulness.

 

@HB:
Gnarff has it right on. The Bible is pretty clear about these things, and God has held up His end just fine, even when I haven't held up mine.

@NonSequitur:
I believe you are taking the statements to more of an extreme than they were intended to be. No one said things were perfect with the Bible in schools, and no one said things are as bad as they can possible get with them out. It was simply noticed that things are worse now than they were then.
Certainly, idiots, violent men, biggots, and con-artists will always twist religion into something it was never meant to be, but those are the exception, not the rule. Saying that religion can't have any impact on the good of society because of them is like saying nothing good can come of nuclear technology because of the atom bomb.
What you have to understand (even if you aren't a christian) is that there are primarily two forces working on man to pull him to good or evil. One is the conscience, I'm pretty sure even atheists believe that people have some kind of sense of right and wrong, even if its socialized, that's the conscience. The other is the short-term rewards of doing the wrong thing: better pay, easier job, less competition, people not finding out about mistakes, etc. One pulls you to the right, the other pulls you to the wrong. People choose which way they want to go, but solid moral beliefs like those found in the Bible heavily reinforce the conscience of those who believe, and even of many who do not, but are raised by them.
As for validation of faith, when was the last time you saw a raging squall line stop 10 feet off shore while a pastor finished his beachside sermon? When was the last time you saw a terrible thunderstorm, with a bone-dry circle of about a 20 yard radius surrounding a ministry team using delecate electronics. I have. The squall line waited until the paster had finished and everything had been cleaned up before it stormed through. The thunderstorm didn't touch us until the gymnastics were over, the skits and singing were over, the message was over, with a somewhat less than short prayer at the end, and the last of the electronics had been safely put away on our bus, before pooring down rain and terrible winds trashed the now vacant detention yard. I'd say things like that are pretty good for building faith.

 

By doing what? Surely you won't actually know whether he has kept his end of the deal until you end up in the eternal paradise of His Glory in Heaven after you die?

 

This I have no issue with. It's when people (of any denomination) resort to attempting to enforce certain standards of conduct onto people in their private lives - as the more belligerent, on all sides, have tended to - that I take offence.

@ NOG,

No, it was implying causation. If it was just about things being worse now than in the past (which is debatable on at least a few of those points), there would have no references to God. The very title of this thread implies it, too. While I don't think too many people would deny that there may be some correlation, the second half of that initial post takes it a long way overboard.

You're right, too, about religion being able to have a positive effect, and your point about the atomic bomb is spot on as well. However, the sort of antagonistic chest-thumping and "We-told-you-so" overtones in the second half of that email you received does little. IMO, "good" people - Christian or not - would be focusing on addressing the problems, not using them as soapboxes.

Re: conscience vs selfishness - Agreed, a little guilt never did anybody any harm. In response to that, I offer the doctrine of Calvinist predestination (not the over-exaggerated version, though - that's just ludicrous and paints God as a somewhat sadistic puppet master). This is why I think Christianity has some great ideas and concepts, but why I have such an opposition to ordering the concept of faith around belief structures determined by humans. People will build those structures to suit themselves and will prostitute religion to do it if they need to justify themselves.

Re: validation - As I said in my last post, I honestly believe people can read God into (or out of) anything if they want to. I can think of a number of events in my life that seem to have been so happily coincidental that I could read the hand of the divine into them - it's one of the reasons why I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. I am disinclined to do that, however, because I do not believe myself to be so special that God would orchestrate events that way for my benefit when others who have so much more faith need so much more assistance.

 

Though it is quite difficult to refrain from such behavoiurs, what bothers me sometimes is that even a humble solution that is in haermony with the teachings of Christianity it is mocked, ridiculed and discarded because they don't like being preached at. Sure abstaining from pre or extra marital sex would reduce the odds of unwanted pregnancy and STD, but people don't like it when others suggest that they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage...

That's part of the problem. People for 2000 years have been reading into religion and God whatever they wanted, and used that to coerce the masses into doing what they wanted...

 

What of unwanted pregnancy within marriage? Abandon the various precautions and the wife would be constantly with child. No one could afford that. Never mind the impact on a woman's health and constitution.

Of course a lot of people dont take kindly to being told how to go about their (sex) life. The ridicule Christians receive is well earned; the proper answer for their haughty approach to those who do not share their convictions. Apply them to your own lifes and be satisfied with the boons you see coming by them, and leave others to their own devices. Respect their arrangements in life as you wish to have yours respected. Although it may be hard to grasp for devout Christians (in fact their teachings exclude the notion - ah, the inherent tolerance of it...), yours is not the one way through this world.

 

The problem comes when so many of the other groups start enforcign their beliefs on us. Making spanking illegal, making christian radio or bradcasting illegal, saying a pastor can't preach against something to his own congregation, nor support candidates for elections. Few of these have happened in the US, but all have been tried, and I know many have happened in Europe.
The other problem, though this doesn't support Christians forcing their views on others, is that we're called to help people, to tell them that what they're doing is wrong. Now that's all we're called to do, but every time we do, we get attacked.
As for pregnancy in/out of marriage, no contraceptive is 100% effective, but if the mother is nursing, her odds of getting pregnant are significantly reduced, even without contraceptives. Nursing produces certain hormones that help prevent pregnancy. All this works whether you're married or not.

 

@NOG: I personally know several women who conceived while actively nursing. To rely on that as contraception in any way is foolish. All nursing does is suppress the return of the menstrual cycle. However, a woman can ovulate for several months before her period returns. This is how women end up pregnant without thinking it could be possible.

/me takes a deep breath to make sure she's calm

I understand your approach, and that Christians believe they're helping others by pointing out sins. The problem as I see it, is that you're trying to impose an absolute set of standards to define "sin." OK, Christians believe in that absolute standard - I think that's wonderful,and I'm mightily impressed by anyone who can meet those standards 100%. However, what about people who don't hold those same standards? Why should a non-Christian be forced to live a Christian lifestyle?

Personally, I don't care what goes on in anyone's home or church or broadcasting station - until it starts impinging on my life. And guess what? I'll be more than happy to return the favor, and keep my nose out ouf your business.

 

Exactly right. I don't have to live there, I don't have to go there, and if you don't like what's being broadcast, there's these little knobs on radios - one controls volume, the other controls the receiving frequency - turn the latter. The right of free speech is something everyone is entitled to - however just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean others have an obligation to listen or comply.

 

@NOG:
Since when is broadcasting a Christian radio show or TV show illegal? There are plenty of prayer channels on the AM band, and lest we forget, there's always the PAX channel on TV. Or is it just Canada suppressing freedoms in the spirit of homogeneity?

 

That reminds me of that old bumper sticker: "Are you Pro-life? Good, then get one of your own and stay the hell out of mine."

 

The people who got prayer out of school filed a suit against the government organization that controls radio broadcasting (blanking on the alphabet soup) in the mid 1980's because they said they were violating seperation of church and state by allowing religious channels. The main backer disapeared about a month later, no one know what happened, but the suit was dropped. I know at least a few nations in Europe have had similar incidents. I think there was a post on here a year ago about a Swedish pastor who was arrested for preaching against homosexuality. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

@Rally:
I'm not talking about forcing our beliefs on you. I'm just talking about pointing them out when you violate them right in front of us. If you don't want to believe, that's your problem.
For those who are now wondering how I stand on the homosexual marriage issue, I think the government should get its nose out of marriage all together. It was meant to be a religious institution, let it get back to that. If gay people want to live together, that's up to them. If they want to get the IRS to recognize they live together, I have no problem.

 

Significantly reduced, maybe, but the chances would be reduced further if some sort of evil contraception was used.

 

Actually, you're choosing for it to be YOUR problem. I have my own set of beliefs and practices that suit my spiritual needs very well, thank you.

 

It is not required of you or anyone to sleep with someone of the same sex, or with the opposite sex while you are not married. Nor do you get flamed for your ideals.
I dont see how your beliefs get violated in any way.

Err, no. If someone doesnt share your beliefs there is no problem at all. Except that heavily indoctrinated people get real uncomfortable and petty if some insist on their own point of view.
Talk like that, and the thought behind it, is the problem.