Well, setting aside the question of tolerance/broad brushes/etc., the question is whether sending a kid to church or some other religious education is helpful in the process of moral education. Like I said, my personal experience (not necessarily generalizable) was that it was not helpful. Also possibly relevant is that the uber-tolerant versions of Christianity are not highly-represented where we live. For example, we looked for a UU meeting, and there isn’t one in Doha. There is the Anglican/Episcopal Church here, and an unofficial fundy church. That’s about it. We probably won’t live in Doha forever, but those are our options for the time being. Right now, my daughter has good building blocks for being a good person–she is loving and compassionate–so how best to develop those into a good moral system? I’m unconvinced that sending her to Church is the best way to do that. Eventually, it will be up to her; but right now; it’s up to me and my wife.
Actually, although there is a lot of diversity in Anglican/Episcopal churches, they tend to be some of the most tolerant. In the US, anyway. YMMV if this is a church in Qatar.
But their holy scripture tells them they should be - it’s there in black and white in Leviticus. Just like it tells them to do a bunch of other stuff we would probably find morally reprehensible nowadays, like stoning people to death for adultery, or murdering your own children if they argue with you, or forbidding the eating of shellfish or mixed fabric clothing etc etc. Hey I didn’t write the damn thing, I’m just pointing it out.
I’m not saying that religion automatically equals hateful bigotry, but that the argument “religions are a good source of morality” when they’re completely inconsistent with themelves on what their morality actually is or even should be (just watch a fundie and a liberal talk about what constitutes Christian morality), is a pretty weak one. Therefore Sophistry doesn’t need to send his daughter to a church or bible camp or whatever to give her a good grounding in morality, or to outline the moral and ethical systems of different religions.
You’re arguing from ignorance here. The Biblical witness on homosexuality is not as black-and-white as you seem to think, which is why Christians are always arguing over it.
Thanks!
Actually, I mostly agree with this, in that being religious is neither necessary to becoming a moral person, nor does it guarantee being one. However, I do think the best place to learn about any religion is from the inside. The amount of ignorance and stereotyping displayed on these boards about Christianity in general (with a few exceptions) is evidence of that.
Why do you think that a church/temple/whatever may be the right way to teach or reinforce morality? Or your wife?
I can see how a study of religions is a necessary history to know in order to understand parts of the world experience, or that understanding faith and worship can be an excellent way to explore how the human brain works biologically and psychologically, but those things are a “dry study” of theology, which is very different from the faith and magic thinking that unpin an actual belief in gods.
Well, I don’t, although some people in this thread seem to think that religious training might be morally beneficial somehow. I am questioning this claim.
In Qatar, likely 80+% of the congregation is Indian/South Asian, but with a white (British most likely) pastor; also likely pretty conservative relative to most US congregations, though most of their energy is probably focused towards the needs of their poorer members, as these congregations tend to encompass a very wide range of income levels.
Excuse me? I’m pretty clear that I know enough about old testament biblical morality to say with confidence that it condemns homosexuality, and the context of why it does so. The fact that there are Christians who will go through the most tortured theological wrangling to explain why it doesn’t to simply avoid their own cognitive dissonance and/or try and make themselves feel better about their religion is not my problem, nor is it down to my ignorance, thank you.
It’s probably best if I stop following this thread as I can’t seem to stop hijacking. Good luck Sophistry.
They are arguing about it now. They weren’t arguing about it 100, 1,000 or 1700 years ago, were they?
That many Christians (and Jews) accept homosexuality just indicates that many are more ethical than their deity, which is no big surprise. Given that it is difficult to find a specific verse endorsing SSM, say, doesn’t it make sense that ethical religious people conclude that it is okay and then go off to find justification for it?
I’m not knocking this - when there is a consensus among religious leaders to change what scripture says, they can often drag along the congregations more quickly by saying God says slavery is wrong, for instance. But we also can get into situations like the great Episcopal/Anglican schism between churches who support gay rights and those who do not.
I’m sort of playing devil’s advocate here, because the Episcopal Church parish and diocese I belong to rejects same-sex marriage. But, those who are in favor of it (who are the majority in TEC) have a pretty good argument for same-sex monogamous relationships, as we understand them today, having no prohibition (and indeed implied support) in the Bible. Of course there are no verses that specifically endorse SSM; that would have been literally incomprehensible to the comtemporary authors. But there is a respectable argument that the passages in the Bible that seem to prohibit homosexuality have been too widely interpreted and instead refer to specific acts of dominance, abuse, or prostitution and not to our modern idea of same-sex marriage.
My point is that anyone who states that without a doubt, the Bible categorically condemns homosexuality has not done their homework and should refrain from casting stones.
You know, if you’d have asked me yesterday morning if such a thing as an atheist biblical literalist existed, I’d say “that makes no sense.” Today…you come across something new all the time!
Can you provide one of the basic counter arguments to the old Leviticus 18:22 “man should not lie with man as with womankind” abomination whatnot?
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a good answer as to why modern Christianity doesn’t condemn cheeseburgers, or shellfish, or multi-threaded garments as much as it does buggery. Because they’re in the old testament too, so the argument that “hey, it’s in the OT: you’re not a True Christian if you are tolerant of homosexuality” doesn’t really fly if you aren’t prepared to make the same statement about the above.
Religioustolerance.org is pretty good at laying out things like this from all sides.
The search function here should also come up with some discussions on this.
But liberal Christian faiths aren’t stagnant, they change. They aren’t bound by the text of the Bible. They moved to ordain women, they’ve been ordaining openly gay people for decades.
Even some more traditional Christian faiths aren’t bound by the text of the Bible. The Catholic Church is the originator of such popular interpretations as “James, Spiritual Brother of Christ,” “Let’s make up Purgatory,” and “Celibacy for the Priesthood.” One of the drivers for the Protestant Revolution 400 years ago was the Catholic Church’s tendency to reinterpret the Bible to suit their needs. Biblical Non-Literalism has a very long tradition.
This is pretty much the liberal Christian response to Lev 18:22 – that law was written by God for a specific people (the Isrealites) at a specific place and time, and as Christians we are no longer under the Law of Moses; it’s gone the way of shellfish and cotton/polyester. (They also point out that Leviticus doesn’t seem to have a problem with lesbianism.)
Hey, we’re pretty common. But actually the question isn’t literalism - it is what metric do you use to decide one passage should be followed and another should not be. I understand the literalist’s position - they all should be followed and considered true unless clearly a story. I understand the atheist’s position - none should be followed or considered true unless there is an external ethical argument or evidence for doing so. I don’t understand the metric used by moderates.
Well, I do - it seems to be a non-religious ethical filter, which determines whether a passage is to be accepted or not. Which is to be applauded - it just doesn’t seem to do much in the way of supporting the view that religions provide any sort of moral guidance.
Yup, the Ten Commandments, right out. (Now if my neighbor’s wife was only more attractive.) I can point to a specific place in the NT which got rid of dietary laws. Why was this necessary if they no longer applied. Am a missing a passage where Saint Peter or someone dreams of Adam cavorting with Steve?
My understanding is that the Council of Jerusalem (or “Apostolic Council,” a model for the succession of ecumenical Councils which began with the Council of Nicaea) decided that Christians-who-were-not-Jews (a new but growing category) could be exempted from most, but not all, provisions of Old Testament Mosaic law. I’ve never seen a theological argument for why some things but not others could be set aside; it was probably a practical matter of gaining adherents without demanding too much change in their practical customs.
So there is nothing of value in the story of The Good Samaritan - it provides no moral guidance? You can’t look at religions comparatively and get some fairly universal truths (most seem to have some form of golden rule)? Its “throw out baby, bathwater, tub, faucet, and might as well burn down the house?” Life is that binary, that black and white?
There are people who use their religious texts as a rulebook and those that use it as a framework. And using it as a framework in part means recognizing that most religions religious texts were written over a period of time, long ago (Scientology…a little different) and therefore are not universally pertinent to today and need a little editing and interpretation to wrap it into daily life.
I understand that the framework provided by religion isn’t useful to everyone and don’t see why it needs to be (I’m not Christian myself, or a member of any other text based dogmatic faith - well UUs can be pretty text based, but Leaves of Grass is one of the texts…along with all sorts of traditional religious texts), but I don’t see why we can acknowledge and be respectful of the idea that it is helpful to some people and teach our children to be respectful of that, even if we don’t teach them belief or encourage them to have Faith.
Don’t let me hold you back, then. (I’m betting it’s something Paul wrote if it’s there).