Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
According to the story god knew perfectly well that the apple was dangerous, but failed to take reasonable precautions to keep Adam and Eve from getting to it. And then once they did, he blamed them for it instead of taking responsibility for his failures.

It's the story of Adam, whose name literally means 'man', and Eve, who God places in a garden containing the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. When they eat from the Tree of Knowledge they're punished with the need to sustain life through labour, and childbirth respectively.

Who the fething hell reads that story and thinks 'well there's a literal description of events that actually happened and something that is not a metaphor at all'?

I mean, that kind of silliness drives me batty when a religious person tries to claim the bible is a literal transcript of real events and not a heavily symbolic collection of stories from which to draw general lessons, but it's probably even more frustrating when a non-believer misses the point as well, as guys like you don't even have faith as potential cause for confusion.

Seriously, it's a symbolic story. Picking out one character, even God, and claiming his actions don't suit our morals is completely missing the point. Origin stories don't work like that.

 dogma wrote:
You probably want to rephrase that.

Why? If someone punished their child by murdering it and tried to claim "I have the right to do whatever I want to it, I created it" we'd (rightfully) consider them insane and throw them in prison. However, I can't even count the number of times I've had Christians attempt to justify god's atrocities by saying "god has the right to do it to us, he created us".

Well, your first problem is assuming that evil is a thing separate from "Things I don't like." The distinction you're making is about elevating your own judgment, nothing more.

Ooh, moral relativism? How about let's put aside the question of whether there's a universal morality in some absolute sense and just leave it at "the overwhelming majority of people would say this is wrong". The actions I'm talking about are pretty universally considered evil, and any plausible theory of morality will reach the same conclusion.

Your second problem is that you speak of God in human terms. This is something I will approach in an unusual fashion and say that God making Man in his own image entails a relationship between Man and God that renders them comparable. If Man is vicious/violent/aggressive at times, then so must be God.

Sure, I'd agree with that. However, most Christians I've encountered would disagree with a claim that the god of their religion reflects the worst of human cruelty and violence.

 sebster wrote:
Who the fething hell reads that story and thinks 'well there's a literal description of events that actually happened and something that is not a metaphor at all'?

Lots of people, unfortunately.

And even if it's a metaphor my criticism is still valid. Whether the apple is a literal apple or a symbol of tempting things god wanted us to avoid, the principle is still the same. God created Adam and Eve with a sense of curiosity, created Satan, created knowledge and locked it away from us, and then failed to take appropriate precautions to keep us away from that knowledge. And then when Adam and Eve disobeyed god in a way that any idiot could have seen coming, god punishes them in an unimaginably cruel way rather than take responsibility for creating the entire scenario in the first place.

Seriously, it's a symbolic story. Picking out one character, even God, and claiming his actions don't suit our morals is completely missing the point. Origin stories don't work like that.

Ok, fine. It's an origin story and we shouldn't take it literally. Congratulations on destroying the entire concept of original sin, a fundamental principle of many (if not all) branches of Christian doctrine. If Eve didn't actually give in to temptation then the entire story of Jesus makes no sense. Without original sin to make us all unworthy of god and require the sacrifice of Jesus to allow us into heaven there's no need for salvation through faith, and you can be a good person and be just as worthy of heaven. Now, one can argue that the doctrine of original sin is a horrible ethical concept, but it's not exactly a trivial detail about Christianity we're talking about reversing.

On the other hand if Eve did give in to temptation, the negligent parent analogy is correct. Whatever form the actual giving in to temptation took god failed to prevent it and then blamed the victim for allowing it to happen.

And Sebster, keep in mind that this is all in response to a point concerning a literal interpretation of the story that General Gog made. The point being made about a literal interpretation of the story is only being made because that's what was presented in the first place.

 Peregrine wrote:
Lots of people, unfortunately.

That's true. And I think the answer to that is to try and explain to these people that stories don't work like that, instead of entering the same mindset as them.

And even if it's a metaphor my criticism is still valid. Whether the apple is a literal apple or a symbol of tempting things god wanted us to avoid, the principle is still the same. God created Adam and Eve with a sense of curiosity, created Satan, created knowledge and locked it away from us, and then failed to take appropriate precautions to keep us away from that knowledge. And then when Adam and Eve disobeyed god in a way that any idiot could have seen coming, god punishes them in an unimaginably cruel way rather than take responsibility for creating the entire scenario in the first place.

It isn't just the apple that's a metaphor. There wasn't actually a Tree of Knowledge, or a snake, or a guy called Adam or a lady named Eve that was made out of him.

There is knowledge, temptation, man and life. Read in this way it's a pretty amazing story. Read as something that actually happened it's complete gibberish.

Ok, fine. It's an origin story and we shouldn't take it literally. Congratulations on destroying the entire concept of original sin, a fundamental principle of many (if not all) branches of Christian doctrine.

Not taking the events of the story as actual, literal things that happened doesn't mean the message of the story isn't true. Man was tempted by knowledge, and so came to know right and wrong and distance himself from God, and so you have original sin.

Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.

If Eve didn't actually give in to temptation then the entire story of Jesus makes no sense.

No, because the actions of Adam and Eve are descriptors for what we do now.

 sebster wrote:


Not taking the events of the story as actual, literal things that happened doesn't mean the message of the story isn't true. Man was tempted by knowledge, and so came to know right and wrong and distance himself from God, and so you have original sin.

Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.

And divorced from many of the concepts of the Abrahamic God, not just the literal interpretation of Genesis, it's actually quite a fantastic story. But YHWH kind of ruins this by being... YHWH. It works from a more deistic perspective, but that's about it.

 poda_t wrote:
[...]Remarks about what a cat may or may not have dragged home need not necessarily pertain to a feline animal. [...]

Candidly, I think neither one of us knows what you're on about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:
The Biblical God shows that man can have a personal relationship with Him.

Going along with this, but to be a bit more specific, I'd say that the gospels are about basically one thing: what is God like? And it's not an open question but rather an answered one: God is close to us. I'm not saying that isn't "reading into them" but, as I already mentioned, the gospels themselves speak to a tradition. They proceed from a tradition and it's kind of dumb to presume that one can read them in a meaningful sense outside of a tradition. For Nicene Christianity, I do think that basic question and answer are the foundations. So if you read a story in the gospel and you think the question they raise is "how should I vote in the upcoming election?" or you think their answer to "what is God like?" is "a tyrannical hatemonger" then you're well beyond the pale of even the most general contours of Christianity.

 sebster wrote:
That's true. And I think the answer to that is to try and explain to these people that stories don't work like that, instead of entering the same mindset as them.

Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong? I could argue just as easily that the literal interpretation is correct, and it just means that the story is an outdated myth and we should just abandon the religion entirely as factually absurd nonsense.

It isn't just the apple that's a metaphor. There wasn't actually a Tree of Knowledge, or a snake, or a guy called Adam or a lady named Eve that was made out of him.

There is knowledge, temptation, man and life. Read in this way it's a pretty amazing story. Read as something that actually happened it's complete gibberish.

It doesn't matter if it's literal or not. All that matters is the following:

1) Forbidden knowledge (or whatever the apple represents) exists, and is created by god.

2) Humans obtain the forbidden knowledge by giving in to temptation.

3) God has not taken adequate precautions against us obtaining that forbidden knowledge.

4) God punishes us for doing so.

If these are correct, the negligent parent analogy is appropriate.

If these are not correct the story, as understood by most Christians, loses its meaning entirely.

Note that contrary to what you claimed, original sin makes no sense if it was actually the action of one man - why would anyone else be accountable for that? But as a symbolic story of something we all do, undertake actions that take us further from God, it nicely supports the idea of original sin.

You're right, original sin is horrifyingly wrong under any remotely sane ethical system. The concept of punishment for the sins of the father is little more than justification for revenge provided by a primitive society far removed from modern civilization. However, it's still part of Christian doctrine.

The answer of course is to say that Christianity is immoral and leave the church, not to pretend that the doctrine means something else entirely for the sole purpose of making the religion ethically acceptable.

No, because the actions of Adam and Eve are descriptors for what we do now.

That might be your personal belief, but the belief of many (if not most) Christians is that original sin refers to a single specific event that occurred in the distant past. In fact it MUST be a single event, since that's the entire point of original sin: no matter how good you personally are, no matter how much sin you avoid in your own life or how devoutly you obey god, you have inherited original sin and require Jesus for salvation.

The story of Adam and Eve is about moral responsibility of adult humans.

Original sin is actually about human nature rather than being held accountable for someone else's faults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong?

Reason.

 Manchu wrote:
The story of Adam and Eve is about moral responsibility of adult humans.

That might be what it was intended to be about, but it actually tells the story of god's horrible moral failings. God's behavior in the story is far below the standards we'd accept for humans, and it makes a joke of any claim that god is "good" and perfect beyond anything humans can reach.

Also, how can Adam and Eve have moral responsibility if they're created in a state of ignorance? They're no more "adult humans" than a small child is, and their only moral "failure" is failing to obey the commands of god.

Original sin is actually about human nature rather than being held accountable for someone else's faults.

You wouldn't know this from hearing people talk about it.

And even if the intent is to make a statement about human nature it's a horrible statement. The doctrine of original sin says that no matter how hard you try, you can't be good enough to avoid hell. The kindest, most moral person deserves to be tortured for eternity, just like the most evil person. If god casts you down into hell, he is giving you exactly what you deserve, no matter what you have done in life. Unless of course you accept Jesus, in which case your human nature is magically overlooked and you escape hell.

The whole story, from beginning to end, is about holding other people accountable. Original sin starts it by holding humans accountable for our ancestors, while torturing and killing Jesus somehow magically transfers our sins onto him. It's a classic story of scapegoating, and it's sad that people hold it up as an example of the highest morality when really it shows some of the worst of human nature.

 Peregrine wrote:
Except what makes your non-literal interpretation correct while theirs is wrong?

Reason.

How is reason involved here? What makes "this is a symbolic story" more reasonable than "this is a literal story but it isn't true"? The only reason I can see for preferring the first option is if you're starting from the premise that you have to believe in Christianity, so anything that helps you believe it is the most reasonable interpretation.

I can pretty well address everything you've ever posted about religion on this website, at least that I've seen, by responding to this:

 Peregrine wrote:
You wouldn't know this from hearing people talk about it.

To wit, if you want to know about something, you don't listen to idiots talk about it.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You wouldn't know this from hearing people talk about it.

I can pretty well address everything you've ever posted about religion on this website, at least that I've seen, by responding to this: if you want to know about something, you don't listen to idiots talk about it.

But at what point do those "idiots" become "mainstream religion"? If the majority of members of a religion believe things that make you dismiss them as idiots, shouldn't it be time to dismiss the religion as a whole?

Plus, it's not like "sophisticated theology" really does much better. Sure, it doesn't tend to do things like claim literal six-day creation or stand on street corners ranting about abortion, but its arguments really aren't any better. In my experience its believers might have good intentions, but all they really offer is a bunch of comforting excuses that aren't really good for much besides allowing decent people to ignore the worst parts of their religion. Once you look at it from outside the religion the flimsy rationalizations just fall apart and you're left with something that isn't any more plausible than the literalist claims.

 Peregrine wrote:
But at what point do those "idiots" become "mainstream religion"?

That's a good question with a very simple answer: never.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But at what point do those "idiots" become "mainstream religion"?

That's a good question with a very simple answer: never.

But that doesn't make any sense. "Mainstream" is defined by what the majority of people believe, and unfortunately the majority of people seem to share a lot more with the "idiots" (as you call them) than with you. The heavily modified theology that you're talking about seems to exist in exactly two places: a handful of people who are both progressive and love thinking about theology, and when debating atheists about the morality of religion. It does not seem to have very much in common with the everyday beliefs of the majority.


Plus, like I said, it's still wrong. It's wrong in ways that take longer to argue about, but in the end the result is the same.

Sorry, I thought by "mainstream" you meant something like "authentic." Yeah, stupidity can be mainstream. I mean, look how many books Richard Dawkins has sold on religious topics.

Plus, it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ways that take longer to argue about but in the end the result is the same.

 Manchu wrote:
Sorry, I thought by "mainstream" you meant something like "authentic." Yeah, stupidity can be mainstream. I mean, look how many books Richard Dawkins has sold on religious topics.

"Mainstream" by definition means "average", not "most reasonable in my opinion".

And of course my original point about mainstream beliefs was that I'm not just picking on the easy target of some 10-person ultrafundamentalist church here. My criticism applies to commonly held beliefs among mainstream Christianity. You might disagree with the majority on those subjects, but that doesn't make my criticisms of their beliefs any less appropriate.

(I'd defend Dawkins on this, but having seen his utter cluelessness about sexism recently I don't really care enough to bother.)

Plus, it's not wrong. It's not wrong in ways that take longer to argue about but in the end the result is the same.

Ok, then let's see your version of the story and why it's a) morally good, and b) factually true (or at least plausible enough for belief in its truth to be justified). I'm willing to debate non-mainstream positions as long as the people holding them make it clear what their position is.

 Peregrine wrote:
My criticism applies to commonly held beliefs among mainstream Christianity.

No it doesn't.

Peregrine wrote:Ok, then let's see your version of the story and why it's a) morally good, and b) factually true (or at least plausible enough for belief in its truth to be justified).

The story of Adam and Eve is not factual. It is a story. I don't know what you mean by morally good. I suppose you mean "does not encourage people to hate and oppress one another." The point of the story is that human persons bear responsibility for the moral dimension of their lives. The further point, regarding original sin, is that human nature is not complete as to its own moral perfection, which requires grace, the entirely gratuitous gift of the benign creator. I am sure that it could be twisted to bad ends, as with anything. Fortunately, we have a long and indeed ongoing tradition to turn to so that we don't, in arrogance, believe we should interpret these things ourselves according to our ignorance.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know what you mean by morally good.

Since it's supposed to be a symbolic story, does it teach a good moral lesson? Do the things the story describes as "good" and worthy of approval match our understanding of what "good" is?

The point of the story is that human persons bear responsibility for the moral dimension of their lives.

Ok, that's what it claims to say. Now let's look at what actually happens:

First of all, Adam and Eve are created in a state of ignorance. That alone negates any point about moral responsibility because Adam and Eve didn't have moral responsibility when they made the central decision in the story, just like we don't hold a small child morally accountable for actions done out of ignorance. We also can't consider it a story about moral responsibility because of the influence of Satan (himself created by God) taking advantage of their ignorance to tempt them into doing the "wrong" thing (though we could argue Satan's moral responsibility if we wanted).

Then we have to look at the act in question, and we find that it really isn't a moral flaw at all. In fact, by taking the knowledge, Adam and Eve were acting against an injustice (God creating them in a state of ignorance and keeping them there), something we could easily argue is a good moral choice. The only reason it is "wrong" is because it is disobeying God, but there's pretty strong consensus that it is moral to disobey (or even fight back against) an unjust ruler.

But is God unjust? I think he pretty clearly is. Like the negligent parent he leaves a dangerous item around where his children can get to it, and then blames the child when the inevitable happens. God demonstrates a level of morality far below human standards. And, for an omnipotent being that could easily do better if it wanted to, this is a pretty huge failure. And then, consider God's punishment for this disobedience: he expels Adam and Eve from paradise into a world of suffering, dooms them to age and die, and declares that their state of sin will send countless descendents to eternal torture in hell. This is an insanely disproportionate punishment, and the only moral judgment we can apply is very simple: evil.

Finally, it's a pretty bad lesson because the resulting state of Adam and Eve is seen as a bad thing. We now have moral responsibility, but rather than this being a positive thing, that we've grown up and become adults, it's seen as a fundamental flaw in humanity that keeps us from god. Even the name says it all, the Fall, not the Awakening. If it's meant to be a statement on our moral responsibility, shouldn't it say something besides "here is why you are unworthy"?


End result: as a factual story it's complete nonsense. As a symbolic story it tells horrible moral lessons. It praises appalling behavior, and condemns good actions.

The further point, regarding original sin, is that human nature is not complete as to its own moral perfection, which requires grace, the entirely gratuitous gift of the benign creator. I am sure that it could be twisted to bad ends, as with anything. Fortunately, we have a long and indeed ongoing tradition to turn to so that we don't, in arrogance, believe we should interpret these things ourselves according to our ignorance.

It hardly requires twisting to take it to bad ends. The "gift" is the same "gift" an abusive spouse gives by deciding not to beat their victim one night. God created the entire situation in the first place, and did so deliberately*. He created us with these imperfections instead of creating us perfect and worthy. He decided to make his gift conditional on accepting an act of torture and murder, with refusal punished by eternal torture, instead of simply giving it to us and allowing everyone into heaven. These are not morally praiseworthy actions, they're the actions of a sadistic tyrant, or, at best, an amoral rules-obsessed sociopath.

As a moral lesson it's just a bad one. Why would you prefer "we are not worthy and require the grace of god" to "we stand or fall on our own merits"? If you're going to base your beliefs on a moral message atheism offers a message of hope and responsibility, that instead of trusting in god to make everything right it's our duty to make the best world we can for ourselves.



*As an omnipotent being god could have chosen from an infinite variety of potential universes to create, including ones in which humanity is perfect but still has free will. And yet he chose to create this one.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, that's what it claims to say. Now let's look at what actually happens:

By all means, go educate yourself and approach the scripture in the context of tradition. Otherwise, we're talking about "Peregrinism" and not Christianity. No offense, but I couldn't care less about Peregrinism. It seems pretty fethed up, honestly.

Manchu...just trying to understand the context of your "idiots" comment. Are you stating that any other approach outside of Roman Catholicism is idiotic? You didn't directly say that, but it seemed implied..I didn't want to take you out of context.

GG

No. I mean that no one should listen to people preaching hatred, violence, oppression, etc, and think they're getting an authentic insight into Christianity. I don't care whether the idiot in question is a televangelist or a cardinal. And yep, there have been a fair few idiots given fancy red hats over the ages up even to this very day.

 Manchu wrote:
By all means, go educate yourself and approach the scripture in the context of tradition. Otherwise, we're talking about "Peregrinism" and not Christianity. No offense, but I couldn't care less about Peregrinism. It seems pretty fethed up, honestly.

So I guess what you're saying is that the Christians who I have argued about this stuff with were lying to me when they said what they believe? I'm not just making this stuff up, it's a direct consequence of the things people have told me about their beliefs. Now, I'll grant that I come to a different conclusion from the same story, but that doesn't make it a straw man. And of course you have yet to tell me how those beliefs are actually wrong. As far as I've seen your only objection to what I've said has been "this isn't exactly what I believe" without ever giving any real substance to it.

And as for "tradition", I fail to see why it has any value. If "tradition" is that we take the original text and pretend that it says something it doesn't actually say, then tradition should be ignored. In that case "tradition" is nothing more than an excuse to keep believing in something even when it violates your moral standards. At that point shouldn't you just let go of the whole thing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
No. I mean that no one should listen to people preaching hatred, violence, oppression, etc, and think they're getting an authentic insight into Christianity. I don't care whether the idiot in question is a televangelist or a cardinal. And yep, there have been a fair few idiots given fancy red hats over the ages up even to this very day.

And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity". It might be hard to accept that the mainstream beliefs of your religion are horrible, but the conclusion you should draw from it is that it's time to leave the religion, not that you and a small minority of people like you have the "authentic" religion and the majority doesn't.

The "original text" is just a tradition that got written down and that particular written version was preserved/modified by the same ongoing tradition. Talking about scripture without tradition is ludicrous.

Also, I don't doubt that you have talked to Christians. But if you are accurately reporting what they told you then all I can say is that they don't understand the religion that they profess or they aren't able to articulate it very well or you don't have the capacity to understand what they are saying. I suspect it is a little of each column, given your posts here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity".

And again, no.

There has always been and will always be more ignorance than knowledge but that does not reduce but rather enhances the value of knowledge.

 Manchu wrote:
The "original text" is just a tradition that got written down and that particular written version was preserved by the same ongoing tradition. Talking about scripture without tradition is ludicrous.

Sure, you have to take into account some of the history, but consider an analogy:

Suppose there's a movie that shows a parent murdering their child for disobedience, made back in the 1950s (AKA conservative fantasy land). Suppose that the intent of the movie, and the context in which it was shown and approved of originally, was "obey your parents or else".

Now suppose over time there is a tradition built up around the movie that says "it's a story about parents trying their best to help their children". Most people leave it at that superficial level and then go back to thinking about more important things, like who is going to win this week's football game, while a few scholars come up with elaborate explanations of how it works that way.

Now, would we consider that tradition to be valid, or would we say that the people following that tradition are just lying to themselves about what the movie really says? And should we say that the tradition is correct, or should we say that people should throw that awful movie in the garbage where it belongs?

The same thing is happening with Christianity. The message of the actual text and beliefs surrounding it is ethically horrible, but people say "this is a morally good story". What they say about the beliefs is completely out of touch with the content of those beliefs, and calling it "tradition" doesn't change anything.

Also, I don't doubt that you have talked to Christians. But if you are accurately reporting what they told you then all I can say is that they don't understand the religion that they profess or they aren't able to articulate it very well or you don't have the capacity to understand what they are saying. I suspect it is a little of each column, given your posts here.

And what makes you the judge of how well they understand their own religion? As far as I've seen your only complaint here is that they don't come to the same conclusion that you do.

And, again, at some point it stops being a minority of idiots and becomes "authentic Christianity".

And again, no.

And why not? If 95% of self-identified Christians believe in ethically horrible things, then those ethically horrible things are "authentic Christianity". What I don't get is why you insist on associating yourself with that label instead of letting go of something where the mainstream majority are so terrible in your opinion.

(Not saying it's exactly 95%, that's just a hypothetical number.)

 Peregrine wrote:

Why? If someone punished their child by murdering it and tried to claim "I have the right to do whatever I want to it, I created it" we'd (rightfully) consider them insane and throw them in prison. However, I can't even count the number of times I've had Christians attempt to justify god's atrocities by saying "god has the right to do it to us, he created us".

It is a rather interesting problem for many that oppose abortion. I imagine that you get around it by considering fetuses to not be children.

 Peregrine wrote:

The actions I'm talking about are pretty universally considered evil, and any plausible theory of morality will reach the same conclusion.

I can come up with theories of morality that do not. It isn't hard, just assume the actions are not immoral and engineer the theory with that in mind. That's basically how all theories of morality are created.

The basic tenants of Christianity are not really in controversy. If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with. Maybe some Christians have helped you come to that conclusion but the lot of you are unfortunately in the dark. Because that's not what is actually said at mass, or by the bishops, or by the popes throughout all the ages of the church, right back to Christ himself, at least to any extent that it's actually been preserved and handed on down to the people of today. How ancient Jews got their points across is a matter of scholarly research rather than popular discussion. Anyone who thinks they can interpret the Bible just because they have it in front of them is deluded. Whether they're a Christian or an atheist makes no difference, it's the same delusion of grandeur at work. Christianity is not an opinion. It's not about me making up what I think a story in a book is about. It's an act, something I do with a community in the context of a community. My understanding of my faith and the tradition and scripture, comes from a lived experience.

What you're talking from is an apparently ill-informed opinion.

 Manchu wrote:
The basic tenants of Christianity are not really in controversy. If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with.

Its a semantic shift.

It's a matter of many semantic shifts moving in all directions.

 dogma wrote:
It is a rather interesting problem for many that oppose abortion. I imagine that you get around it by considering fetuses to not be children.

Edit: I see what you were actually saying.

In my experience they get around it by claiming that god has special creator rights that humans don't, and the poor "unborn child" is really god's creation so we have no right to destroy it.

I can come up with theories of morality that do not. It isn't hard, just assume the actions are not immoral and engineer the theory with that in mind. That's basically how all theories of morality are created.

Ok, can we not play devil's advocate just for the sake of arguing? You know perfectly well what I meant by that statement, that every moral theory that has ever found non-trivial acceptance in any community agrees on the very simple cases. We can argue all day about various theories and the most complex moral questions, but if you poll a hundred people at random they're all going to agree that murder is wrong.

 Manchu wrote:
If you think that it's about some tyrant terrorizing people, that is something you've come up with.

No, it's what the Bible actually describes. The only reason we're reluctant to apply the "tyrant" label is because Christians have decided that god must be "good" regardless of what the Bible says.

Because that's not what is actually said at mass, or by the bishops, or by the popes throughout all the ages of the church, right back to Christ himself, at least to any extent that it's actually been preserved and handed on down to the people of today.

Wrong again. You might not like the consequences I draw from the beliefs I'm talking about, but I'm referring to things which are commonly held beliefs.

My understanding of my faith and the tradition and scripture, comes from a lived experience.

And your lived experience does not seem to match up with what most people say about their beliefs.

Or, I could give a different explanation: you're a fundamentally decent person, and you want to have morally good beliefs. But, unfortunately, you've decided to rationalize away the bad parts of Christianity and convince yourself that it must be "good" even when the Bible describes horrible things. You've got a huge investment in the community and it's hard to leave it all behind, so rather than just say "this is evil, I'm done with it" you come up with some comforting explanations and don't question them too seriously. End result: you accomplish your goal of keeping your faith.

And even if this doesn't describe you personally, it certainly describes what a lot of people in your religion do.

 Peregrine wrote:

Edit: I see what you were actually saying.

In my experience they get around it by claiming that god has special creator rights that humans don't, and the poor "unborn child" is really god's creation so we have no right to destroy it.

You got one prong, but the second prong related to your implied claims regarding death in the context of abortion; assuming you support it.

Actually, I was brought up in an areligious household. I converted to Catholicism over the course of about eight years, most of which were spent in college or grad school. Your hypothetical account of my biography is as out-of-touch as your hypothetical account of Christian beliefs.