Topic: "Slaves Obey Your Masters" billboard torn down

[seaotter]

It is the year of the bible, not Christians. It just points out the stupid stupid things that the vast majority of christians have the decency to ignore. Like stoning children, marrying your rapist, asking parents to sacrifice their son, or actually sacrificing their daughter, or incest, drowning all the life on the planet, killing an innocent for others sins(wups).

[IrishJazz]

It is the year of the bible, not Christians. It just points out the stupid stupid things that the vast majority of christians have the decency to ignore. Like stoning children, marrying your rapist, asking parents to sacrifice their son, or actually sacrificing their daughter, or incest, drowning all the life on the planet, killing an innocent for smothers sins(wups).

Alternately giving captured women a path toward respect, substituting animal sacrifice for human sacrifice, stealing Gilgamesh from the Babylonians, or coming up with a reason for why a God who made mortal creatures changed his mind and gave them eternal life.  Viewed as a set of eternal principles it is pretty ridiculous; as a view of moral development it has some redeeming factors.

[seaotter]

Eye for an eye is better than an eye for a tooth.

[worldslaziestbusker]

It is the year of the bible, not Christians. It just points out the stupid stupid things that the vast majority of christians have the decency to ignore. Like stoning children, marrying your rapist, asking parents to sacrifice their son, or actually sacrificing their daughter, or incest, drowning all the life on the planet, killing an innocent for smothers sins(wups).

Alternately giving captured women a path toward respect, substituting animal sacrifice for human sacrifice, stealing Gilgamesh from the Babylonians, or coming up with a reason for why a God who made mortal creatures changed his mind and gave them eternal life.  Viewed as a set of eternal principles it is pretty ridiculous; as a view of moral development it has some redeeming factors.

Praising a religion for giving up the human sacrifices it mandated is like praising someone for no-longer putting their genitals in a blender.  Oprah and her ilk have primed society to ignore people who never developed drug habits or abused their spouses so we can sing the praises of those who managed to quit their bad habits, so perhaps this is not a surprising line of thought, but it is a flawed one nonetheless. 

[IrishJazz]

It is the year of the bible, not Christians. It just points out the stupid stupid things that the vast majority of christians have the decency to ignore. Like stoning children, marrying your rapist, asking parents to sacrifice their son, or actually sacrificing their daughter, or incest, drowning all the life on the planet, killing an innocent for smothers sins(wups).

Alternately giving captured women a path toward respect, substituting animal sacrifice for human sacrifice, stealing Gilgamesh from the Babylonians, or coming up with a reason for why a God who made mortal creatures changed his mind and gave them eternal life.  Viewed as a set of eternal principles it is pretty ridiculous; as a view of moral development it has some redeeming factors.

Praising a religion for giving up the human sacrifices it mandated is like praising someone for no-longer putting their genitals in a blender.  Oprah and her ilk have primed society to ignore people who never developed drug habits or abused their spouses so we can sing the praises of those who managed to quit their bad habits, so perhaps this is not a surprising line of thought, but it is a flawed one nonetheless.

I don't exactly disagree with your point here Busker.  But given the less than optimal path towards social justice society has followed, any step forward from slightly more benighted misery is still an advance.  Its not really praise, it is a way of understanding the text.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Why do you think the change in the religion was the cause of the end of human sacrifice and not a result of that change?  Both you and Robert Wright, writing in "The Evolution of God," cite the changing conception of divinity as leading the societal shift in values.  Steven Pinker, writing in "The Better Angels of Our Nature" posits the reverse as the more likely causal relationship.  Society would no longer stomach human sacrifice, so the religion had to adapt to that.  We see the same thing happening now, all too slowly, as churches gradually absorb societal values and give up protesting women's equality,  race equality and recognise that teh gay is not the same thing as the end of civilisation.  I'm sure they'll eventually get dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century.  I hope our record keeping is sufficient that our descendents won't misinterpret what was driving the change.

[IrishJazz]

Why do you think the change in the religion was the cause of the end of human sacrifice and not a result of that change?  Both you and Robert Wright, writing in "The Evolution of God," cite the changing conception of divinity as leading the societal shift in values.  Steven Pinker, writing in "The Better Angels of Our Nature" posits the reverse as the more likely causal relationship.  Society would no longer stomach human sacrifice, so the religion had to adapt to that.  We see the same thing happening now, all too slowly, as churches gradually absorb societal values and give up protesting women's equality,  race equality and recognise that teh gay is not the same thing as the end of civilisation.  I'm sure they'll eventually get dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century.  I hope our record keeping is sufficient that our descendents won't misinterpret what was driving the change.

Religion doesn't have to be the cause of a shift in morality to be the mechanism by which it gets institutionalized and transmitted.  Based on what I have read, at the time the Abraham/Isaac story was written, there were still child sacrifices to competing gods like Baal.   

In the absence of a guiding deity- who should have given good instruction the first time around- the only way for these concepts to emerge or be purged is through human morality.  I agree with you that religion- based on revealed and eternal truths- tends to be a lagging indicator of human advancement. 

But if innovation- or logic- are not its strong suit, the resistance to change is not always a bad thing either.  It may limit societies advance, but it also limits its ability to move backward.  I know you would think religion is unnecessary, and perhaps it is.  But it is what exists, and it is not a complete black hole of evil ideas.

I think religion, with some major exceptions, is already in the 20th century.  Maybe 1911 or so.

[worldslaziestbusker]

I don’t think religions are acting as a transmitter, but as a receiver.  Those religions which tune in to and adapt to societal shifts in values carry on.  Those that don’t fall by the wayside, Baal worship being a good example.  I can imagine Baal’s high priests discussing the falling numbers of adherents.
Maximum priest: We’ve got to do something to prop up our market share.
Modal priest: Well, we could outlaw human sacrifices.  It seems to be a hit with our competitors.
Maximum priest: No!  People will think we’re selling out, that we’re just a bunch of followers.
Former customer: Forget you guys.  I’m not killing my kids.  I’m switching brands.
Both priests: Nooooooooooo.
Bailiff: I’ve come for the office equipment.

Many religions try to act as a transmitter, broadcasting a morality they would prefer everyone adhere to.  This works as a great credibility enhancer when that morality aligns with what everyone already agrees to (Why yes, I do think that killing and stealing are undesirable. Please, tell me more about this Jesus fellow) but when a society has moved on from that morality the signal sounds tinny, and people begin to tune out. 
Not killing and not stealing don’t need to be institutionalised for me to think they are good ideas.  They might need to be institutionalised to protect me from people whose psychology lies outside that range along a spectrum that we call normal, but a government can do that.  That churches and governments were once the same thing doesn’t validate your claimed utility of religion.

[IrishJazz]

Not killing and not stealing don’t need to be institutionalised for me to think they are good ideas.  They might need to be institutionalised to protect me from people whose psychology lies outside that range along a spectrum that we call normal, but a government can do that.  That churches and governments were once the same thing doesn’t validate your claimed utility of religion.

It is an interesting counter-factual speculation to posit that mankind could have organized and developed perfectly well without religion.  It is impossible to re-run the experiment.    Ultimately your argument is against the necessity of belief, not the utility.  Christianity may have often  been cruel, backward, and inefficient., but from a historical perspective- necessary or not- it played a role.

The fact that people are able to achieve power roughly equivalent to religious belief with fake science suggests that secular superstition might have worked as well.  But, in the absence of scientific knowledge, or a widely established and accepted process of achieving it, power would inevitably flow to those who explained- convincingly if not accurately- how the world worked. 

Criticizing the early parts of the Bible overlooks the fact that, to the ancients, religion and morality were not always the same thing.  The Greek and Roman gods were self-interested and destructive.  Most of the cults and ceremonies were practical and civic rather than moral.  A god who turned himself into various animals to have sex with cute humans was not one that anyone looked to for moral instruction.  The God of the Jews gave them laws, many arbitrary, but, as the story of Job illustrates, He was not bound by them.  He could kill a man's family and cover him with boils just to win a bet.

But even if they were not part of the religion, classical cultures did have standards of morality.  You could be jailed in pagan Rome for theft, or executed for any number of offenses.   There were no real police, of course.  Men of power had their own private armies and assassins.  Government, law and religion co-evolved. 

Separating them is an interesting challenge, but the best that can be achieved is smart, speculative fiction.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Not killing and not stealing don’t need to be institutionalised for me to think they are good ideas.  They might need to be institutionalised to protect me from people whose psychology lies outside that range along a spectrum that we call normal, but a government can do that.  That churches and governments were once the same thing doesn’t validate your claimed utility of religion.

It is an interesting counter-factual speculation to posit that mankind could have organized and developed perfectly well without religion.  It is impossible to re-run the experiment.   

It's not counter-factual.  It's exactly what we can observe in society now as religions fight every advance in enfranchisement and equality.  They are followers, not leaders.

but from a historical perspective- necessary or not- it played a role.

I never stated that a role wasn't played, simply that the role wasn't the one you suggested.  The phrase "hand brake" and the word "retardant" spring to mind.

He could kill a man's family and cover him with boils just to win a bet.

You said it, brother.  Testify.

Government, law and religion co-evolved.

You say potato, I say potatoe.

Parasites co-evolve with their hosts.  While their presence can have an accelerant effect on the evolution of the host species, individual hosts are better off with lower rather than higher density infestations.

Separating them is an interesting challenge, but the best that can be achieved is smart, speculative fiction.

While we can only speculate on the historical incidences, we can see analogous changes occurring today sufficient to give us confidence that humanity would have muddled through okay without its parasites.

[IrishJazz]

While we can only speculate on the historical incidences, we can see analogous changes occurring today sufficient to give us confidence that humanity would have muddled through okay without its parasites.

Maybe there was an ideal path that was not taken.  Parasites, alas, seem to be inevitable.

My suspicion is that this has something more to do with human ignorance and gullibility than with intelligence and logic. I was once on a bus with 40 people all born on my birthday. The first thing out the window was any belief in astrology.  The second was the belief in any sort of quality control for the human species.   

[worldslaziestbusker]

Maybe there was an ideal path that was not taken.  Parasites, alas, seem to be inevitable.

Even so, we don't need to say "thank you" to them or forgo taking Combantrin every now and then.

I was once on a bus with 40 people all born on my birthday.

If this was unplanned then it is well threadworthy.  Please elaborate.

[IrishJazz]

I was once on a bus with 40 people all born on my birthday.

If this was unplanned then it is well threadworthy.  Please elaborate.

I was in the last group called up for a pre-induction physical for the military draft.  They weren't actually drafting anyone at the time, but they were still going through the motions with people with single digit draft lottery numbers.

[worldslaziestbusker]

I see.
I may have been on buses full of people who shared my birthday, but we will never know, because the topic never came up.  I will make a point of asking in the future.  23 people gives you even money odds of sharing a birthday with one person.  Forty might stretch things a bit longer. 

[IrishJazz]

I see.
I may have been on buses full of people who shared my birthday, but we will never know, because the topic never came up.  I will make a point of asking in the future.  23 people gives you even money odds of sharing a birthday with one person.  Forty might stretch things a bit longer.

This was not just the same date, it was the same day.  It takes government coercion to make such an unlikely grouping a reality. 

Thinking further about your (true) proposition that religion reflects, rather than innovates moral norms...

The God of the OT was not a moral God, nor was he understood to be one.  He was a God of Laws, some of which were arbitrary (no pork or shellfish, cut the skin of the end of your penis) and some (regarding theft, treatment of slaves, sex) had some aspects of what we thought of as morality.  What they thought of as morality was obeying the law- not following individual conscience. 

In any case, reading current morality back into the past, however valid in terms of absolute morality (assuming such a thing exists,) is anachronistic.