it seems to me that sometimes you argue that "religion, per se, is a fundamentally flawed (at best; at worst, corrupt and corrupting) system" and at other times you argue that "well, actually, people who aren't TOO religious, i.e. fundamentalist, are actually okay, because they are remarkably similar to me/atheists".
You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.
again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view - the "fear of retribution". you want to say that people like me aren't "one of those", but maintain that "those" types are not just loony fringe-deists, but in some way demonstrate the fundamental abhorrence/flaw of deism itself.
my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist such as yourself - compassion, commitment to social justice, etc; however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.
you say that "the majority" of theists/deists/whatever you've come across are of the "fear of retribution" type; may i suggest your sample size and/or sampling method are problematic. but even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.
I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.
it is not at all a moot point! you are only allowing me one way of reading the bible here - a very fundamentalist, literalist way which assumes that the bible was written in the same way that muslims believe the koran was written (god spoke, mohammad listened and copied it down directly). there are a number of other ways to understand the bible; i see the hebrew scriptures as the story of israel trying to live in covenant with god, and trying to express their relationship with god and their idea of who god is, but getting it horribly wrong sometimes (although sometimes for good reason - when you're experiencing a genocide or extreme persecution, it's fairly reasonable to want god to smash your enemies' babies against rocks. it's not nice, but neither was their situation).
for the record, i do think that god changes, but you don't have to believe that to believe what i say above.
Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.
uh... that's because the new testament wasn't written in contemporary times! hey man, you're the historian! not that long ago you were telling me i could hardly expect machiaveli to give moral advice to princes because it was a different time and it was (according to you) inconceivable for a prince to act morally (by our standards)...
no subject
You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.
again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view - the "fear of retribution". you want to say that people like me aren't "one of those", but maintain that "those" types are not just loony fringe-deists, but in some way demonstrate the fundamental abhorrence/flaw of deism itself.
my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist such as yourself - compassion, commitment to social justice, etc; however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.
you say that "the majority" of theists/deists/whatever you've come across are of the "fear of retribution" type; may i suggest your sample size and/or sampling method are problematic. but even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.
I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.
it is not at all a moot point! you are only allowing me one way of reading the bible here - a very fundamentalist, literalist way which assumes that the bible was written in the same way that muslims believe the koran was written (god spoke, mohammad listened and copied it down directly). there are a number of other ways to understand the bible; i see the hebrew scriptures as the story of israel trying to live in covenant with god, and trying to express their relationship with god and their idea of who god is, but getting it horribly wrong sometimes (although sometimes for good reason - when you're experiencing a genocide or extreme persecution, it's fairly reasonable to want god to smash your enemies' babies against rocks. it's not nice, but neither was their situation).
for the record, i do think that god changes, but you don't have to believe that to believe what i say above.
Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.
uh... that's because the new testament wasn't written in contemporary times! hey man, you're the historian! not that long ago you were telling me i could hardly expect machiaveli to give moral advice to princes because it was a different time and it was (according to you) inconceivable for a prince to act morally (by our standards)...