🚀 go-pugleaf

This thread is a Blessing.

While I am fascinated by and have studied the subject, I hardly ever get to
discuss religion with my friends.  It appears to be one of the very few of
this clique's taboos.

Unless it's some groovy ethnic or "eastern" gig, which is cool.  Or maybe
even a little monotheistic mysticism, such as the poetry or dancing of the
Sufi or the esoteric wisdom of the Kabbalah.  Or perhaps we refer to it
obliquely in one of the many re-hashed political debates (as the old joke
goes, USENET is indeed a slow-moving parody of itself, as are we all ;^).

But we rarely talk about the fact that we don't talk about us not talking
about G-d [or G-d(d-ss) if you prefer...if any of my pronouns here offend
then I beg pardon].

Va negvpyr <3pt9v7$9f9@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
sutin@helios.ucolick.org (Brian Sutin) jevgrf:
} steiner@best.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
} >In Article <3pil0b$r60@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, sutin@helios.ucolick.org (Brian
} >>[...]
} >>Widespread belief is monotheism is good for society, because it externally
} >>enforces a uniform set of morals.  The actual existence of the deity in
} >>question is irrelevant.

I have some trouble with this on both counts.  I'm not certain that a uniform
code is in and of itself a goodness (though I'll grant you that anomie is not
devoutly to be wished either).

More on the latter later.

} >The same can be said for polythiesm, or even atheism.  One does not need a
} >diety to establish a moral or ethical code.

True.  But you do need an Authority to enforce a _uniform_ set of morals in
any society (though I'm sure my Anarchist friends will disagree with me ;^).

} Why can't people READ?  It says, `externally enforce,' which means, `I, the
} Lord, shall blast you into eternal damnation if you go wrong.'  This is more
} effective than, `The police might catch you and put you in jail overnight.'

Brian, I understand what you are saying and probably agree to a certain extent.

On the other hand, if we are speaking of Christianity here then this argument
is seriously flawed from an theological point of view (granting that as a
practical matter both Church and State have used tactics such as these as
a means of social control).

Tis true that the theologians of the Middle Ages may have preached a God of
Love, but the Dooms over the cathedral doors depicting the tortures of the
damned told the faithful a very different story.  And more recenty in history
those ``Fire and Brimstone'' types of Christian preachers may very well speak
more about Satan and damnation than Christ and salvation (though this seems
to me dangerously close to a heretical bitheistic Gnosticism).

But ask most any Christian priest or theologian and s/he will likely inform
you that salvation is a matter of faith, not acts (I say most because even
with this "one religion" there are a number of different understandings of
"the truth").

And most would tell you that the Lord does not blast anybody into eternal
damnation for going wrong.  Damnation is simply the willful turning away
from God.  The privation of sanctifying grace is a consequence *of* mortal
sin, not a punishment *for* it.  And the sinner is still quite capable of
redemption, which is found by the turning back to God.

Damnation only becomes eternal because there is no possibility of repentance
after death.  It is the _irrevocable_ character of their choice, and not a
defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the mortal sins of the damned 
unforgivable.  At least, this is what the Catholic Church teaches.  They
also teach that while we may judge that an act is in itself a grave offense,
we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

And from my reading of Genesis I gather that God is both Willing and able to
change his mind and amend his threatened punishments for even the most major
of transgressions...

The evolution of the concept of Hell is very interesting.  The Catholic
Church affirms its existence as a "place" where the souls of the damned
descend (whereas other Christians may see it as simply the state of being
separated from God).  It seems to me that there are obvious influences of
Hellenistic notions of the afterlife and soul and the underworld at work
here, as well as Judaism of course and even early Persian philosophies.

And our modern version of Hell has been greatly influenced by Milton's
_Paradise Lost_ and Dante's _Inferno_.  Of course most Americans have
probably never read either, and have picked up a cartoon caricature of
hell via osmosis from the culture and its media.  But as far as I know
none of these works have been accepted as canonical by any religion. ;^)

} Polytheism does not enforce uniformly.

Interestingly enough, I would add pagan Rome to the contrary examples.  Note
that the early Christians were considered "atheists" because they did not
conform to the prevailing, uniform set of mandated morals and worship.

Note also some of the early Christian communities were so into the throws
of an eschatological ferver that the worldly and temporal mores of the time
were of little consequence to them and therefore didn't afford much reverence.
The early Church was constantly on the defensive against charges of immoral
behavior by some of its members.

And in those days the Caesar was a deified ruler, and held the title of chief
priest or Pontifex Maximus (The Pontif).  Later on, the bishop of Rome usurped
this title and inherited a bit of divinity in the process.

So is the function a function of the form, or does the form follow function?

} >Further, such a belief does not enforce a uniform set of morals; Christians,
} >Jews, and Muslims all believe in the same God; yet they have different moral
} >codes.
} 
} This shows that you have not encountered any of the above mentioned systems.
} There are relatively minor differences among them,...

Yes and no.

Again, I would agree with you up to a point.  They all agree on a given lowest
common-denominator when it comes to more-or-less moral absolutes (such as Thou
Shalt Not Murder).  But even here one can find some lighter shades of grey...

And when it comes to the dietary or adornment rules or marriage customs and/or
any of the other more context-sensitive mores (or even the format and meaning
of the liturgy throughout Christendom!) you do have vastly different codes.

} ...compared to `As you harm none, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of
} the law.'

All this is is the Bride of the Golden Rule, which itself is the cornerstone
(if not the absolute bedrock) of all three of these major religions (IMNSHO).

One might claim that it implicitly promotes or allows some inevitably evil
(or perhaps just destructively libertine) behavior, but I personally don't
see it that way.

In fact, it is the one moral absolute I will allow to inform my political
beliefs.  I find this Truth to be self-evident, and if any axiom defines
our (supposedly) secular society this is it.

And I would like to note that what thou wilt do is not automatically or
even likely to lead to abhorrent or abnormally immoral behavior by most
religious standards, especially and particularly if it harm *none*.

} They are all based in Judaism, but they do NOT have the same God.

In a sense, we all--each one of us--worships a different God.  I appreciate
the rabbinic insight that God could not be described in a formula as though
he were the same for everybody; that God is in fact an essentially subjective
experience.  God has, as it were, adapted himself to each person ``according
to the comprehension of each.''  (see Exodus Rabba 34:1; Hagigah 13b; Mekilta
to Exodus 15:3)  Not uttering the name of G-d is a helpful reminder of this.

But in another sense I think we really *do* have the same God in a very real
and fundamental way.

} MY God doesn't run around impregnating random women in Palestine.

I pray that it might be possible, and with God's Grace we shall be able, to
discuss religion here without violating the Golden Rule.
               ..
I know it is naive and foolish, but then so is the expectation of salvation
I suppose.

(BTW Brian, my God runs around impregnating all random pregnant women, and
all knowledgeable Catholics understand that God is present and participates
in the sacrament of marriage ;^)

} >Finally (for this message, at least), a consistent set of morals does not
} >mean that the morals are good morals...

Sometimes words get in the way.

How do we talk about something which is both transcendent and ineffable yet
immediate and personal (or alternately distant and logically inconsistent)?

In the words of Joseph Campbell:

   The best things can't be told because they transcend thought.
   The second best are misunderstood, because they are the thoughts
   that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about.
   The third best are what we talk about.

...

Morals are by definition "good morals": that which is moral is right, and
that which is immoral is wrong.  The notion that society cannot legislate
morality is a nice logical slight-of-hand: palming the "bad morals" and
then craftily pulling the ``secular'' "good morals" out of trick top-hat.

But it is all moralizing.

} >...--there is a segment of Christianity whose moral code justifies the
} >murder of abortion providers, and the repression of homosexuals.

Sometimes the Word gets in the family way.  And sometimes the Bard is
pregnant with words and gives birth to a line like ``The devil can cite
Scripture for his purpose.''

Is there not a segment of Islam whose moral code justifies killing innocents
and/or contributes to the repression of certain folks?  Shall we then tar all
our Muslim brothers and sisters with the same wide brush?  (Just checking ;^)

Your point is very well taken, and is the ultimate challenge to everybody who
wishes to come to any kind of ecumenical understanding and fellowship.  The
extremes at the fringes are a stark reminder of how hard this can be, and
even the mainstream of a given religion typically has some pretty serious
differences of opinion on theologically important issues amongst themselves.

} Are these bad for society?

I am not much for utilitarian arguments when it comes to the abridgement of
religious freedom or liberty for the "good" of society via some violent and
coercive action.

} Perhaps they are good morals.

And perhaps they are not.

Whose moral code are you using?  Are you an Authority?  If not, then how
do I know that yours is THE legitimate Uniform Moral Code, and exactly why
should I agree to follow these rules in the absence of any obvious proof
of their preferred status and/or divine origins?

Aye, there's the rub.  Religious claims of Authority are universally and
viciously circular--they rest on the assumption of the truth of the very
premise which is the object of the inquiry.  Can any religious truth be
apprehended with traditional Aristotelean subject/predicate logic? ...Eh?

What colour is your axiom?

Or are you saying that *any* externally enforced uniform code is "good"
for society?

} I would like to note that you are not participating in a society where
} `widespread belief in monotheism ... externally enforces a uniform set
} of morals.'

You are living in a society wherein the President of the Republic swears
to uphold the Constitution (and most notably, not our "society") with his
or her hand placed squarely on the Holy Bible.

You are living in a place where there is a widespread belief in God and
where most folks go to some organized church or temple or the mosque or
otherwise engage in their monotheistic religious observances.  This nation
was founded on and has been sustained by religious-minded people.  Whether
this fact bodes well or ill for society or whether a more or less effective
enforcement of a uniform set of rules would be better for us is a matter of
opinion and a whole 'nother question.

I'm sure that there are some secular humanists and moral relativists who
would rather forget that Martin Luther King was a Christian Reverend, or
that Ghandi was a profoundly religious man of God.  Just as there are those
Christian believers who would rather not recall the Inquisition and the
various crusades and all the murderous pogroms.  Just as there are those...
etc., etc., etc...


But in any case, I think that the actual existence of the deity in question
is not irrelevant.

I think it is most relevant.

It's just that the "question" needs to be unasked for the answer to make any
sense.


May your God (or Goddess) go with you.

Love,

John Timothy II

--
I take the Bible far too Seriously to take it ``literally''.

                                                        --Madeleine L'Engle