I understand what you're saying, but he's derailing and cluttering up a thread which had until his arrival, been going incredibly well. I wouldn't be so critical of him if he showed some respect and also some VERY basic debate and comprehension skills.

I understand your point too, but insulting them won't end it. Report it to a mod so he or she could speak with them, given them a warning/warning, etc.

Heat of the moment thing. I don't take kindly to someone insulting my beliefs and I think I got a little too heated there. :D

It's fine. Everyone experiences that eventually.

It depends on why you do that. I think there are three possible causes:

1. Bucause you honestly think it's the right thing. That is, due to a sincere own moral conviction.
2. Just because it's an order. A supposed order dictated by a supposed god through a supposed prophet (a goathers-village's local boss, a carpenter's hippie son in the Middle-East, an Arab syphilitic cameller, etc...) in a supposed certain way.
3. A kind of "intermediate way": the neurotic (or hypocrite) way. You actually behave as you want, but using a self-deception as an alibi. That is, you like to think you do things because you follow religious commandments, although deep in your mind you know that's not true. Catholic priests call this way scholastic, but it's actually the same thing with a politically-correct name.

I support the principles of Liberal Democracy (those from Enlightment to the present). Therefore, I defend freedom of cult and freedom of expression. However, if someone ask me what is more desirable or preferable to me, my opinion is: I wouldn't like to live in a society where people just obey orders, as if they were robots, or expected an afterlife reward. Because as Goya said (and painted): The sleep of reason produces monsters. And neither I like hypocrisy.


A priori you're right. But bear in mind that the term atheist is mainly used in cultural contexts where monotheistic religions are predominant and they've been the main source for moral rules for the past 17 centuries.

A backward movement, because Ancient Greeks already said that human moral principles can be established through a rational process. And towards year 60 Seneca enunciated the main guideline of that what we nowadays call secular humanism:

"Man should be sacred to the man"


And, by the way, perhaps afterwards he drank a good glass of wine. After all, it was Seneca who wrote:

"Wine is a perfect cure for heaviness and sorrow" (Epistulae morales ad Lucilium)

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9949/vinum001.jpg


Sadly, this moral philosophy was replaced, three centuries later, by dogmas from Abrahamic religions. As a result, many people do (or don't do) things just because they think they are fulfilling "divine orders" from a supposed god. And by the way, some say God don't want us to drink alcohol. Well, that's their loss.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/1...veritas001.gif

as again, all I have to say is, if you were to offer a complete litmus paper test to see if I'm good or evil, I wouldn't take it, cos I've done both bad and good things in my life

and being a Gnostic Christian, I wouldn't care either way and neither would God - I would just talk to Jesus to intercede so's I can go to Heaven, and my main aim in getting there is not the glorious architecture or the new life or my fellow Christians but the possibility of hearing every single piece of recorded music in the world until the day I die and thereafter

The only one that's relevant is the first one, imo. Although I didn't really get what you're getting at by the third one. Sounds the same as the second.

But that doesn't mean to say it has to be independtly formed. If you read it somewhere, for argument's sake the Bible, you could then say, "This makes sense to me, I believe it's right so I'll apply it"

Because a "carpenter's son" said it does it make it any less applicable? Doesn't matter who says it, what matters is what's said. He's a prophet in my eyes because of the things he said and did. Not the other way around.

Lets see you just insulted Jacob, Jesus and Mohamed, their respective religions and observes of those religions in one fell swoop, and for what? If you don't believe in them - you don't believe in them. Really I don't get your reference of "a goathers-village's local boss," maybe you mean Abraham, but it also could be Jacob who is associated with sheep since he took care of Laban's herd, it isn't as sardonic as the others (maybe it is maybe it isn't), but anyway your knowledge of Judaism (the Bible) is wanting, the two people whom were given the law were Noah and Moses, not Abraham or Jacob.

God isn't "a supposed idea," there are philosophical arguments (outside of divine revelation) that points to God's existence. But if one has a (proper and moderate) understanding of God one would not considered it an order, but an objective truth that "Thou shall not kill" mean one shouldn't take innocent life and respect the dignity of a human being, so 1 depends on 2 - I don't see why you think there is a distinction between the two.

I hate embarking on a discussion of things I can neither prove nor disprove

Thanks, Geddy, for responding. I agree with you that the intent of a religious law and its practice should be bound up together. When people seem to follow a law for its own sake without considering the intent, then I feel worried.

I read the essay you recommended about Judaism and vegetarianism...thank you! It was interesting to read the Rabbi's views on this debate about whether vegetarianism best matches what people within Judaism interpret as the deepest desires of God:

While I realize that the Old Testament does clearly state that God allowed humans to eat other animals after the Fall, I've often felt an argument could be made that the apparent vegetarianism *before* the Fall was what the Judeo-Christian god originally intended and envisioned...so that *would* be the ideal.

I assume a god would not *want* people to sin such that the rules had to be changed for them, allowing meat-eating. Therefore, I would think that trying to fulfill the original vision for humanity would seem the way to most thoroughly follow whatever intent was behind the original dietary law that gave all animals (including humans) "the herbs of the field for their food" and prohibited them from preying on one another.

Trying to figure out what religious rules to observe, and how deeply, can get very tricky since not only are religious laws open to interpretation, but also the intent behind the laws are open to interpretation, too, and some laws come from human traditions separate from any godly mandate. This is one reason your thread question that opened the thread interested me. I'm curious how people who think of themselves as religious think through these issues.

I've been impressed with the tradition of questioning and debate that I think is an important part of the Jewish tradition for many of the Jewish people I've known and loved, most of whom are secular and follow Jewish traditions as part of their heritage and not out of a belief in a deity. It sounds like you appreciate the openness to questioning that you've experienced within Judaism, too. One of the scariest situations to be in among humans, I feel, is when they do not welcome questioning and debate!