Religion and scuba

[agilis]

Big whoop. And the other 40%? Eh? Are you suggesting that we import no oil from those that treat women as they did in the stone age? Eh?

Surely you don't mean Mexico?

We would import oil from Hell if the Devil built a pipeline.

---------- Post added July 21st, 2015 at 09:36 PM ----------

The "stone" age... LOL... I don't know if that was a play on words given the topic but I found it funny.

I guess what you're talking about is Sharia law. Strangely, the Koran contains exactly ... count em ... zero references to stoning. It was a typically Jewish thing but historical references can be found in ancient Greece as well.

As for the actual "stone age": if it interests anyone, the actual stone age was a long time ago. It mostly ended before the stories in the Old Testament occurred. Much of the religious stuff we have today that bothers us were actually "post classical" or "medieval" in origin. Before that we had other systems, like the Greek and Roman pantheons.

For example, Islam arose in the early middle ages. The intriguing thing about religion is that it does not seem to keep abreast of cultural changes and Islam would seem to be particularly stubborn when it comes to resisting modernization. So, to me, the suffering of women we see today acts like a cultural "time capsule" that gives us a window into the treatment of women in 5th century Persia. At the time, it was the norm and got in the various religious texts, because people found it "normal". With our modern cultural norms, of course, it seems (and is) barbaric and unacceptable, to say the least.

R..

The reactionary and barbaric Wahhabism that now dominates Islam is far from definitive. The first dynasty, the Umayyads, developed a progressive and enlightened society that made the rest of the world appear primitive in comparison. The last dynastic rulers in al Andalus were spectacular. We still marvel at their art and their science. There have been many enlightened versions of Islam over the centuries. B'hai is only one branch on that tree. Omar Khayyam and Avicenna are only two of the many bright stars that once decorated a brilliant universe.

 

[tridacna]

Oh Agilis. The glass symbolic of the hymen? One of about two dozen maybe/if/possible origins. If you state it with enough authority, I suppose you must be right.

http://sociology.biu.ac.il/files/sociology/shared/sp2008-7.pdf

 

[agilis]

Oh Agilis. The glass symbolic of the hymen? One of about two dozen maybe/if/possible origins. If you state it with enough authority, I suppose you must be right.

http://sociology.biu.ac.il/files/sociology/shared/sp2008-7.pdf

That stuff is typical of contemporary anthropological whitewashing.

Read what was written by practitioners of Orthodoxy before certain traditions became an embarrassment. You need look no further than Isaac Singer, though there is no shortage of writers who actually lived in that vanished rich Eastern European Ashkenazi culture and who were not shy in the slightest when describing what they understood as the meanings behind so many traditions that now exist in a comparatively bloodless and attenuated form.

They were not writing for external public relations, worried about what the Goyim might think, or sanitizing some really wonderful medieval realities for their sensitive 21st Century offspring.

 

[drrich2]

It'd be interesting to see how well this one would go over in today's society ...

Poorly, for a number of reasons, as our nations are very distinct. The Hebrew society of the time was led apart by God to become a special nation dedicated to Him, and this was prior to the grace of the New Covenant, and the time would serve as teaching material for the future generations. The holiness of God, the severe nature of sin, the awful dreadful price of sin, the importance of what we might call 'clean living,' these issues were prominent, and the society was quite legalistic. Of course, when the law set forth a punishment, that was often 'what could be done,' not what had to be done. When Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, he intended to quietly send her away, not have her stoned to death, etc...

Modern U.S. society is very multi-cultural, and sadly not dedicated to God. Many people serve themselves first & foremost. This society is far more lax on the issue of sexual immorality. Our marriage success rate is pretty bad. Lots of kids from broken homes.

I've wondered what a person of those times would think looking at modern society. I don't know when human life begins, but I'm pretty sure a partial birth abortion where a baby is pulled part way out by the legs & slain would be pretty objectionable to them. Previously unthinkable, more like. To such a person, some of the criticism in this thread would read like someone sitting on a pile of dead babies while his daughter's out 'whoring,' aghast that 'You had slaves!!!'

We know that slavery is wrong because of the moral code that our secular society has developed over centuries (and because of other things such as our own moral compass, but these are more difficult to address). We know these things anyway, we don't have to look at religion.

All we 'know' is that modern social codes prohibit it & a lot of people hold the opinion that it is wrong. But in the sense of somehow 'knowing' a moral truth, not really. People of other ages believed differently than many of us, people of future generations may also believe differently than us, having a majority or even consensus doesn't prove right (though it may dictate policy), and distant future generations could decide that having a slave class is expedient to society (long as you're not one of them, of course). I hope not, but it's very possible. And then they'll 'know' that it's right (according to them, anyway).

Richard.

 

[dfx]

I've wondered what a person of those times would think looking at modern society. I don't know when human life begins, but I'm pretty sure a partial birth abortion where a baby is pulled part way out by the legs & slain would be pretty objectionable to them.

I hardly think so. First of all, the bible doesn't mention abortions even with a single word. Second, it contains numerous instances of infanticide, all of which are portrayed as "righteous." If murdering a born child is OK, then surely murdering an unborn one (which I'm guessing is what you think abortions are) surely can't be any worse? Or do unborn children have more rights than born ones?

All we 'know' is that modern social codes prohibit it & a lot of people hold the opinion that it is wrong. But in the sense of somehow 'knowing' a moral truth, not really. People of other ages believed differently than many of us, people of future generations may also believe differently than us, having a majority or even consensus doesn't prove right (though it may dictate policy), and distant future generations could decide that having a slave class is expedient to society (long as you're not one of them, of course). I hope not, but it's very possible. And then they'll 'know' that it's right (according to them, anyway).

I see that you still don't get it. We may not know the full moral truth (yet), but we're learning. We're getting there. Maybe we'll never know it all, but we'll keep trying. This is exactly the same thing that we're doing with physics, chemistry, astronomy etc etc.

This has nothing to do with opinions or majority or consensus.

I see that you also don't recognize the irony of saying what you just said. You condemn secular morality for not knowing the full moral truth (yet), while claiming that you yourself somehow have access to some divine moral truth, which however seems to change over time? How does that work? Where's the truth in that?

 

[drrich2]

Second, it contains numerous instances of infanticide, all of which are portrayed as "righteous."

I don't know the reference for that. Are you talking about times when the Hebrews warred & basically exterminated enemy, or what?

If murdering a born child is OK, then surely murdering an unborn one (which I'm guessing is what you think abortions are) surely can't be any worse? Or do unborn children have more rights than born ones?

That's a serious question I don't have the specifics for. If a woman near term has a partial birth abortion, fine & dandy, but just a few weeks later it traverses the vagina & she tosses it in a dumpster, she's a murderer. That seems strange to me. Does passage through the vaginal convey status as a human being?

I see that you still don't get it. We may not know the full moral truth (yet), but we're learning. We're getting there. Maybe we'll never know it all, but we'll keep trying. This is exactly the same thing that we're doing with physics, chemistry, astronomy etc etc.

I get it just fine. In physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc..., there's an objective truth to get. Regardless of what people or groups think or feel about it, what the consensus is, etc... There's an underlying truth apart from our perception of & policy regarding it.

That's not true of human-devised 'moral' truth. From a strictly secular perspective. You've explained the basis for secular morality in a previous post rather well, but it's a belief system/value system that's a social construct, a matter of belief/attitude/opinion/faith, and I believe you even pointed out it's not necessarily about survival of the species in a Darwinian sense. More like making the most people the most happy?

Richard.

---------- Post added July 21st, 2015 at 09:57 PM ----------

You condemn secular morality for not knowing the full moral truth (yet), while claiming that you yourself somehow have access to some divine moral truth, which however seems to change over time? How does that work? Where's the truth in that?

While I don't share the atheistic mindset, I'm not 'condemning' it so much as calling it what it is; a belief framework of human design to promote some people/group's agendas/beliefs. Even it's something as laudable as trying for the most good (however that's defined) for the most people. Such a framework might be used to do some things I would also consider good.

As for divine moral truth changing over time, I don't think that's quite the way of it. God's relationship with humanity is just that; relational. God didn't change, but we did, and our relationship to Him changed over time. The relationship of the early Hebrews taught us in a way that set the stage for better understanding the need for Christ's atoning sacrifice, the value of grace. Yes, you will see differences in how things were handled under the Old vs. New Covenants, at different times in history. And the Bible does not guarantee fairness as we understand it. As humans, we tend to think in terms of how someone relates to us in our single lifetimes. God has dealt with our species; if it takes thousands of years for Him to unfold some aspects of our relationship, that is no great surprise. Under Moses we were taught the 10 Commandments. Under Jesus, love thy neighbor as thyself. God revelations to us didn't all happen at once.

Richard.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Big whoop. And the other 40%? Eh? Are you suggesting that we import no oil from those that treat women as they did in the stone age? Eh?

I'd prefer if we didn't buy any oil from the Middle East. Without our money, they'd soon be irrelevant. Unfortunately, the country we buy the most from in that region is our "friend" ... Saudi Arabia. Our leaders kiss their royal arses every chance they get.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Diver0001]

Modern U.S. society is very multi-cultural, and sadly not dedicated to God. Many people serve themselves first & foremost. This society is far more lax on the issue of sexual immorality. Our marriage success rate is pretty bad. Lots of kids from broken homes.

Rich, "Modern society" is not uniform over all western or non religious states. Degrees of "individualism" and other cultural indicators vary a great deal from one culture to another and, yes, these things do have an impact on things like divorce rates etc.

This is a phenomenon that is independent of whether or not the politics or culture of a land is anchored in religion. For example, according to polling, the culture in the Netherlands puts quite a bit less emphasis on religion in people's daily lives than in the USA. Furthermore, the Netherlands maintains a stricter separation of religion and politics than in the USA.

If what you are saying were true, then the divorce rate in the Netherlands must be much higher than it is in the USA. However, the converse is true. It is much lower. This can't be explained by religion, but it *can* be explained by other culture indicators, such as "individualism" the level of "masculinity" (ie. competition vs. teamwork) and "short/long term thinking". Sociologically speaking, it does not follow that high/low levels of religion in politics or culture directly relate (or relate at all) to how well a society functions.

Sorry mate. I don't want to undermine the relationship you have with God but with respect to how religion affects society you're simply off target.

R..

---------- Post added July 22nd, 2015 at 09:29 AM ----------

I don't know the reference for that. Are you talking about times when the Hebrews warred & basically exterminated enemy, or what?

How about God killing all of the first born sons in Egypt because the Pharaoh wasn't a believer? Estimates of the population of Egypt at about the time this was alleged to have happened would have put the death toll in the hundreds of thousands. Kind of hard to miss that, Rich.

R..

 

[drrich2]

How about God killing all of the first born sons in Egypt because the Pharaoh wasn't a believer? Estimates of the population of Egypt at about the time this was alleged to have happened would have put the death toll in the hundreds of thousands. Kind of hard to miss that, Rich.

Ah. I was thinking in terms of what the Hebrews did under instruction, not what God did directly. Sad fact of life is, there are civilian casualties. Hiroshima comes to mind. This situation is one where I think in terms of the sovereignty of God; His knowledge and authority are vastly above any human. Put simply, He can do what He deems best. If you try to take it upon yourself to judge God, let alone as if He were a human ruler, there will be problems.

Rich, "Modern society" is not uniform over all western or non religious states. Degrees of "individualism" and other cultural indicators vary a great deal from one culture to another and, yes, these things do have an impact on things like divorce rates etc.

Hence the burkas worn by some Muslim women, etc... Yes, I was thinking from a U.S.-centric perspective, but you raise a good point.

If what you are saying were true, then the divorce rate in the Netherlands must be much higher than it is in the USA. However, the converse is true. It is much lower. This can't be explained by religion, but it *can* be explained by other culture indicators, such as "individualism" the level of "masculinity" (ie. competition vs. teamwork) and "short/long term thinking". Sociologically speaking, it does not follow that high/low levels of religion in politics or culture directly relate (or relate at all) to how well a society functions.

I agree that labeling yourself religious doesn't necessarily equate a low divorce rate. That's not the angle I was working. I was responding to NWGrateful Diver's post on how modern society might regard a very strong prohibition against fornication, basically. I suspect a society with very strong conservative views (for whatever reason, religious or not) on what I referred to as sexual immorality would tend to have lower divorce rates than a 'free love' society very tolerant of fornication (and likely adultery). My intended point was that there may be adverse consequences to a strongly sexually liberal society. Not that calling yourself religious secures your marriage. And I'm not calling for putting all the women in burkas, either. How people believe society should respond to such concerns would be another long, multi-page thread.

Richard.

 

[agilis]

Yes, but that was God, not the Hebrew people, and it happened before His Son enrolled Him in an anger management class.