(Thank you, Jon.)
(Yes, Mark, that's clear. I didn't think it was before.)
There are passages in the Bible, in both the old and the new testaments, which condone slavery and explicitly say that women are inferior to men. ....The Bible contains passages endorsing both of these views, as well as other, equally reprehensible views.
No, there aren't. However, there are things in the Old Testament that I cannot rationalize. But of course, being centuries removed, we cannot even analyze them in their context. Just like centuries from now, our descendants will not be able to figure us out.
You can argue that these passages reflect the societies of Biblical times or that they are the responsibility of specific individuals, but that does not change the fact that they are there.
And what's the point? There are descriptions of evil things that people did. There are descriptions of the failings of people who were, and still are, looked up to in Judeo-Christian circles. And then there are countless modern examples of people who violated cultural mores and tried to hide it, only to have it exposed. On the other hand, Letterman "came clean" when he was afraid of being exposed. How many come clean when there is no danger? If someone says "I messed up" on his/her own, is that not admirable? So when individual screw-ups are revealed in the Bible, that invalidates everything?
Which is exactly my point--faith-based moral systems always reflect, never set, the morality of their adherents. A religion which condemns something that the people in the society where that religion believe is good, or which claims as good that which those people condemn, is unlikely to gain traction. Religious systems flourish when they cater to rather than seek to change the various prejudices and bigotries of the target audience.
I submit that the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are an example of an exception to your rule. "A new commandment I give to you...." His teachings went against the tide of the society, and 2,000+ years later, some still attempt to follow them. It ain't easy! Never say always, and only say never when you say never say always.
Author
Sam Harris argues that a religious person can function in a modern, industrial society only if he does not take the sacred texts of his religion seriously, and that the more seriously a person takes the religious texts of his faith, the less able that person is to function.
No surprise here; I disagree.
You can argue that these passages reflect the societies of Biblical times or that they are the responsibility of specific individuals, but that does not change the fact that they are there.
And what's the point? There are descriptions of evil things that people did. There are descriptions of the failings of people who were, and still are, looked up to in Judeo-Christian circles. And then there are countless modern examples of people who violated cultural mores and tried to hide it, only to have it exposed. On the other hand, Letterman "came clean" when he was afraid of being exposed. How many come clean when there is no danger? If someone says "I messed up" on his/her own, is that not admirable? So when individual screw-ups are revealed in the Bible, that invalidates everything?
...faith-based moral systems always reflect, never set, the morality of their adherents. A religion which condemns something that the people in the society where that religion believe is good, or which claims as good that which those people condemn, is unlikely to gain traction. Religious systems flourish when they cater to rather than seek to change the various prejudices and bigotries of the target audience.
I submit that the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are an example of an exception to your rule. "A new commandment I give to you...." His teachings went against the tide of the society, and 2,000+ years later, some still attempt to follow them. It ain't easy! Never say always, and only say never when you say never say always.
The Bible commands many reprehensible things and condones many more--it teaches, among other things, that a man may sell his daughter as a sex slave provided that he does not sell her to foreigners; that if a person in a town turns from god that everyone in that town, including infants and animals, must be killed; that if a family raises a son who turns from god, it is the responsibility of that family to put their son to death; that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death; that if a betrothed woman is raped, she and the rapist are both to be executed; and so on.
All are part of the set of things I cannot rationalize, as stated above. We must not pretend to be smart enough to understand that society based on modern society. The OT texts need to be understood from the perspective of the children of Isreal, leaving Egypt (400 yrs of slavery/brutality) and entering into another very violent culture (Canaan). Many of the old covenant laws were in place to limit brutality & violence. Unfortunately, women were often oppressed and treated as 2nd class citizens by that society. I suppose rules were made that would be effective in that environment, but I don't really know why those rules were made for sure.
Modern Christians find ways to rationalize not doing these things and do not obey these Biblical commands because as members of an industrial, pluralistic society, we believe these things are wrong and our society does not condone them. ...
Modern Christians, and those 2,000 years ago do not because they are Christians. I suppose you can say that about modern Jews, who do not accept the New Testament.
There are modern-day Christians who believe ...
One should not underestimate the ability of human beings to screw up anything; say, government, for instance. Do you suppose there are things about our government that the Founding Fathers would find abhorrent? (career politicians taking graft, for instance)
The point here is that there is an inverse correlation between being a good citizen of a modern, pluralistic society and believing in the Bible, the Koran, or other sacred religious texts; being a good citizen of a modern industrial society just about requires finding some way, if you are religious, of rationalizing the idea that the majority of the scriptures of your faith do not apply to you.
That's nonsense.
