Those are contributing factors but fail to address the crux of the matter.
Can you remind me what the "crux of the matter" is, again?
You asked this question-Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
I answered it. Now you're saying something completely unrelated to the question I answered.
Hence, why did Europe reach the Americas first. Every single indicator up until the 1400s was against them and heavily favored China to make it there first.
No. No. No. No. No.
For one thing, the Pacific Ocean is significantly larger than the Atlantic. And the Chinese never developed ships that were truly capable of far-sea voyage. They weren't interested in the sea. Why should they be when they lived on what appeared to them to be the largest kingdom to exist in the known world?
You can't look exclusively at external factors; you have to tell me what the hell happened to Chinese society that it essentially started strangling itself..for 400+ years.
Let me know if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the isolationist policies of the Chinese dynasties and the general state of non-change that existed in the East Asian countries has to do with their religion?
You ask a bunch of questions that historians spend their entire life studying. Are you claiming that you have the definitive answer to them, or are you asking people to give you a simple answer to a number of immensely complex questions?
Thanks to everyone who answered thus far. The vibe I'm getting here is that rejection of Christianity stems from intellectual and moral objections to its doctrines rather than from disgust with the behaviors of some individual Christians; which does reflect positively on the thoughtfulness of this crowd. Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
Anyway, thanks again for the replies; and this thread can now resume being a China vs. Europe debate...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders. The reason Christianity is so repugnant is not people falsely judging it by the few "bad apples," just like there are in every institution. It's built on a horrible book with immoral teachings and most of its followers still retard intellectual, moral, and technological progress to this day, often with deadly consequences. The fact that there are some young, "progressive" Christians that lean toward reasonableness doesn't compromise how detestable Christianity is.
Clearly it's understood that the existence of a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion, since there are bad apples in every institution.
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders. The reason Christianity is so repugnant is not people falsely judging it by the few "bad apples," just like there are in every institution. It's built on a horrible book with immoral teachings and most of its followers still retard intellectual, moral, and technological progress to this day, often with deadly consequences. The fact that there are some young, "progressive" Christians that lean toward reasonableness doesn't compromise how detestable Christianity is.
Would you care to back that assertion up with evidence? Because I'll give you, right now, several verses from the Bible which instruct Christians how to live their lives, which sound nothing at all like what you're claiming.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:29)
“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11)
“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:14-18)
There are hundreds more verses just like that. Consistently like that.
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
EDIT: BTW, welcome to these forums! (Although, if your intent is simply to bash Christians with unsubstantiated blanked statements, you will not find much welcome even from atheists.)
Christianity is unappealing for me in the same way a subscription to People magazine is unappealing to me, it doesn't enhance or enrich my life in any way. Some like People magazine and I'm fine with that; I'm not going to start ripping magazines out of readers' hands because I don't care for what is on the pages.
I'm not sure that "look, it also has some good parts" is a good way to argue against the claim that it has bad parts. For example:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Colossians 3:22-25)
Is a proclamation that slaves should remain contently and obediently in slavery not evil?
The Bible goes on to say:
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
Shouldn't that say "Masters, free your slaves"?
Sure, the Bible says to do a lot of good things, but it generally says them in a form like "do this good thing because God wants you to and will reward you if you or punish you if you don't". That only gets you so far, because it's a feeble basis for a system of ethics. When it says God wants you to do something bad, like above, how do you distinguish the two? To me, I'd much rather have a system of ethics that says "do this good thing because of these sound reasons", because then you have a way to distinguish good from bad besides "I told you so".
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
Would you care to back that assertion up with evidence? Because I'll give you, right now, several verses from the Bible which instruct Christians how to live their lives, which sound nothing at all like what you're claiming.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:29)
“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11)
“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:14-18)
There are hundreds more verses just like that. Consistently like that.
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
You won't get anywhere by cherry picking verses that agree with modern morality and ignoring the ones that are obviously despicable. You're only proving how useless (and in fact counterproductive) the Bible is as a moral compass. I can give you plenty of quotes with morally abhorrent advice that has justified injustice through the ages, that you probably find disgusting because you're a modern human who didn't get his morality from The Bible or a god. Here are a few examples:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Titus 2:9 "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."
Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
You can also take a quick Google to find the RationalWiki page on The Bible as an immoral book for many more arguments that it's morally evil. I would link you, but I cannot post links without five posts.
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
I don't think Phelps' following could be reasonably described as "large".
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all
Your justification for this statement is?
Quote from HerewardWake » »
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
Wikipedia link here
If Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, then if anyone could be described as "most Christian," it would be those who abide by the Bible (e.g. those who condemn homosexuality, as the Bible demands).
I did not commit an association fallacy. He said that Christians have repudiated Fred Phelps just as much as "anyone else." Considering the only people who do the opposite of repudiating him (supporting him) are Christian, you can say, at least percentage-wise, that Christians do not repudiate him as much as anyone else.
Quote from Tiax »
I don't think Phelps' following could be reasonably described as "large".
You're right. That doesn't change the fact that Christians do not repudiate Fred Phelps "as much as anyone else."
The number of people who don't repudiate Phelps is so minuscule that they don't really make a difference one way or the other. His handful of followers still means that 99.9999% of Christians don't like him, and that's as good as 100% in my book.
The number of people who don't repudiate Phelps is so minuscule that they don't really make a difference one way or the other. His handful of followers still means that 99.9999% of Christians don't like him, and that's as good as 100% in my book.
Fine, but it's still factually incorrect to say that Christians repudiate them as much as anyone. And I think some military families and gay people would disagree with you when you say that 99.9999% is as good as 100% and that his following doesn't make a difference one way or the other.
It doesn't make a difference one way or the other when we're trying to identify how Christians as a whole behave. It may be technically true that an ever-so-tiny number of Christians followed his preaching, but it would be silly to draw conclusions from that fact.
It doesn't make a difference one way or the other when we're trying to identify how Christians as a whole behave. It may be technically true that an ever-so-tiny number of Christians followed his preaching, but it would be silly to draw conclusions from that fact.
I never drew any conclusions from that fact -- I was simply pointing out an error that PandasRPeople2 made. If we want to talk about Christians at large, I can point to the resistance toward stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and evolution off the top of my head as examples of how Christianity at large has demonstrably harmed my country.
My advice would be to stick with those examples rather than try to nitpick over .00001%
I only mentioned it because he said "a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion," when they are following the holy books that Christianity is founded on and because he said that Christians repudiate them as much as anyone.
You won't get anywhere by cherry picking verses that agree with modern morality and ignoring the ones that are obviously despicable.
Like I said, I could give you hundreds more verses from the New Testament that accord with what I quoted already. So that's not cherry-picking. That's the consistent message of the Gospel.
You're only proving how useless (and in fact counterproductive) the Bible is as a moral compass. I can give you plenty of quotes with morally abhorrent advice that has justified injustice through the ages, that you probably find disgusting because you're a modern human who didn't get his morality from The Bible or a god.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran). It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
More to come later; gotta go now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran).
How do you tell which parts are the word of God and which parts aren't?
It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
You should be willing to question your morality. If believing that it is from cultural consensus makes you do that, that is a good thing. If believing that it comes from God makes you not do that, that is a bad thing.
You won't get anywhere by cherry picking verses that agree with modern morality and ignoring the ones that are obviously despicable.
Like I said, I could give you hundreds more verses from the New Testament that accord with what I quoted already. So that's not cherry-picking. That's the consistent message of the Gospel.
You're only proving how useless (and in fact counterproductive) the Bible is as a moral compass. I can give you plenty of quotes with morally abhorrent advice that has justified injustice through the ages, that you probably find disgusting because you're a modern human who didn't get his morality from The Bible or a god.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran). It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
More to come later; gotta go now.
And I could give you hundreds more disgusting ones. You are cherry picking because you choose to believe the "consistent message of the Gospel" is what you agree with instead of whatever you happen to disagree with. For every nice verse you post, I can post just as many if not more horrible ones. Fred Phelps would say that hating **** is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, savages in Uganda would say that burning witches is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, and a few U.S. presidential candidates would say that denying gays message is part of the consistent message of the Gospel. If you really cannot see the "immorality, hatred and intolerance" in the Bible (as you stated before), then you're willingly ignorant.
If Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, then if anyone could be described as "most Christian," it would be those who abide by the Bible (e.g. those who condemn homosexuality, as the Bible demands).
Actually, the Bible is a collection of religious texts based on Christianity. Note that the Christ movement preceded the Bible.
I did not commit an association fallacy.
Yes, you did. Look up what the definition of association fallacy is again. You're attempting to take the negative qualities you associate with Fred Phelps and extend them to all Christians just because Fred Phelps identified as one. That's guilt by association.
I find religion is general unappealing because I simply do not care. Life is too short to waste my time on something like faith.
I was looking for the words to some up my opinion on why christianity/religion in general is unappealing to me, and lo and behold here they are. I'm actually surprised that this wasn't a foreseen objection in the OP.
How do you tell which parts are the word of God and which parts aren't?
I am most confident that a message is divine in origin if it seems least like a message that a human would've invented. I am certainly not ignorant of other religions; and Christianity strikes me as unique in the way that it minimizes the worth of human effort while maximizing the importance of God's grace. Other religions emphasize taking the right actions (i.e. observing the Five Pillars of Islam, following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism) as a way people can "get right" with God or the Universe. People like to feel important and these religions confirm that feeling. So far as I know, only Christianity emphasizes the intrinsic insignificance of human beings, while reminding us that we can have hope because of the significance that is imputed to us by God's love.
You should be willing to question your morality. If believing that it is from cultural consensus makes you do that, that is a good thing. If believing that it comes from God makes you not do that, that is a bad thing.
I certainly do question my own understanding of morality. I simply don't entertain the thought that morality itself is something which, being naturalistic and utterly irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of a society, can be easily discarded under duress or as a matter of expedience.
And I could give you hundreds more disgusting ones. You are cherry picking because you choose to believe the "consistent message of the Gospel" is what you agree with instead of whatever you happen to disagree with. For every nice verse you post, I can post just as many if not more horrible ones. Fred Phelps would say that hating **** is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, savages in Uganda would say that burning witches is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, and a few U.S. presidential candidates would say that denying gays message is part of the consistent message of the Gospel. If you really cannot see the "immorality, hatred and intolerance" in the Bible (as you stated before), then you're willingly ignorant.
Look, I'll level with you. I'm frankly not that interested in the Old Testament. I'm not Jewish. I'm not interested in defending Yahweh's actions in the Pentateuch. Christ is for both Jews and Gentiles; and "Gentiles" like me don't need to embrace Judaism in order to embrace Christ.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
Oh no, no, dude, Pandas, that's completely false. Paul most certainly did tell people to treat homosexuals differently from other people.
I am most confident that a message is divine in origin if it seems least like a message that a human would've invented. I am certainly not ignorant of other religions; and Christianity strikes me as unique in the way that it minimizes the worth of human effort while maximizing the importance of God's grace. Other religions emphasize taking the right actions (i.e. observing the Five Pillars of Islam, following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism) as a way people can "get right" with God or the Universe. People like to feel important and these religions confirm that feeling. So far as I know, only Christianity emphasizes the intrinsic insignificance of human beings, while reminding us that we can have hope because of the significance that is imputed to us by God's love.
Is the Hellenistic idea of the Fates very likely to have been divinely inspired?
This is a silly metric - just because people generally like to feel important doesn't mean that they are incapable of expressing the idea that they might not be. Lots of philosophies have included ideas of predestination, fate, determinism, etc., which minimize our role in deciding our future.
I certainly do question my own understanding of morality. I simply don't entertain the thought that morality itself is something which, being naturalistic and utterly irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of a society, can be easily discarded under duress or as a matter of expedience.
Why does something being naturalistic make it irrelevant? That's just nonsense.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
If we found one, would you do anything other than deny that that particular verse is the word of God?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can you remind me what the "crux of the matter" is, again?
You asked this question-Question is, how does the fricking BACKWATER OF THE WORLD (which Europe was) go on to dominate one of the economic powerhouses of the globe as China had been basically forever?
I answered it. Now you're saying something completely unrelated to the question I answered.
No. No. No. No. No.
For one thing, the Pacific Ocean is significantly larger than the Atlantic. And the Chinese never developed ships that were truly capable of far-sea voyage. They weren't interested in the sea. Why should they be when they lived on what appeared to them to be the largest kingdom to exist in the known world?
Let me know if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the isolationist policies of the Chinese dynasties and the general state of non-change that existed in the East Asian countries has to do with their religion?
You ask a bunch of questions that historians spend their entire life studying. Are you claiming that you have the definitive answer to them, or are you asking people to give you a simple answer to a number of immensely complex questions?
Anyway, thanks again for the replies; and this thread can now resume being a China vs. Europe debate...
The high-profile hate-mongers are the most Christian of them all since they abide by Christianity's foundational text and loudly preach it, as The Bible orders. The reason Christianity is so repugnant is not people falsely judging it by the few "bad apples," just like there are in every institution. It's built on a horrible book with immoral teachings and most of its followers still retard intellectual, moral, and technological progress to this day, often with deadly consequences. The fact that there are some young, "progressive" Christians that lean toward reasonableness doesn't compromise how detestable Christianity is.
Would you care to back that assertion up with evidence? Because I'll give you, right now, several verses from the Bible which instruct Christians how to live their lives, which sound nothing at all like what you're claiming.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37)
“For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matthew 6:14)
“Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:29)
“See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.” (1 Thessalonians 5:15)
“He who is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11)
“Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor.” (1 Corinthians 10:24)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:43-45)
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:14-18)
There are hundreds more verses just like that. Consistently like that.
Where in that do you see immorality, hatred and intolerance? Where in that do you see anything like a justification for someone like Fred Phelps, who was repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone?
EDIT: BTW, welcome to these forums! (Although, if your intent is simply to bash Christians with unsubstantiated blanked statements, you will not find much welcome even from atheists.)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. (Colossians 3:22-25)
Is a proclamation that slaves should remain contently and obediently in slavery not evil?
The Bible goes on to say:
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)
Shouldn't that say "Masters, free your slaves"?
Sure, the Bible says to do a lot of good things, but it generally says them in a form like "do this good thing because God wants you to and will reward you if you or punish you if you don't". That only gets you so far, because it's a feeble basis for a system of ethics. When it says God wants you to do something bad, like above, how do you distinguish the two? To me, I'd much rather have a system of ethics that says "do this good thing because of these sound reasons", because then you have a way to distinguish good from bad besides "I told you so".
You won't get anywhere by cherry picking verses that agree with modern morality and ignoring the ones that are obviously despicable. You're only proving how useless (and in fact counterproductive) the Bible is as a moral compass. I can give you plenty of quotes with morally abhorrent advice that has justified injustice through the ages, that you probably find disgusting because you're a modern human who didn't get his morality from The Bible or a god. Here are a few examples:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
1 Timothy 2:11-12 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Titus 2:9 "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."
Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
You can also take a quick Google to find the RationalWiki page on The Bible as an immoral book for many more arguments that it's morally evil. I would link you, but I cannot post links without five posts.
In regards to your claim that Fred Phelps being repudiated by Christians as much as by anyone, that seems obviously wrong. He had a large Christian following, and no atheist followers that I'm aware of. Does that not indicate that Christians have repudiated him at least a bit less than anyone else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
I don't think Phelps' following could be reasonably described as "large".
If Christianity is a religion based on the Bible, then if anyone could be described as "most Christian," it would be those who abide by the Bible (e.g. those who condemn homosexuality, as the Bible demands).
I did not commit an association fallacy. He said that Christians have repudiated Fred Phelps just as much as "anyone else." Considering the only people who do the opposite of repudiating him (supporting him) are Christian, you can say, at least percentage-wise, that Christians do not repudiate him as much as anyone else.
You're right. That doesn't change the fact that Christians do not repudiate Fred Phelps "as much as anyone else."
― Anthony Bourdain, Kitchen Confidential
I will always firmly stand by the belief that Magic is a game first and a collectable second.
Fine, but it's still factually incorrect to say that Christians repudiate them as much as anyone. And I think some military families and gay people would disagree with you when you say that 99.9999% is as good as 100% and that his following doesn't make a difference one way or the other.
I never drew any conclusions from that fact -- I was simply pointing out an error that PandasRPeople2 made. If we want to talk about Christians at large, I can point to the resistance toward stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and evolution off the top of my head as examples of how Christianity at large has demonstrably harmed my country.
I only mentioned it because he said "a few high-profile hypocrites and hatemongers within Christianity does not itself impugn the religion," when they are following the holy books that Christianity is founded on and because he said that Christians repudiate them as much as anyone.
Like I said, I could give you hundreds more verses from the New Testament that accord with what I quoted already. So that's not cherry-picking. That's the consistent message of the Gospel.
I will certainly agree that there are some Bible verses that I find abhorrent. That is only problematic if I believe the Bible is 100% verbatim the word of God, which I do not (that's the Islamic approach to the Koran). It also has no bearing on the origins of my morality; and if I really believed that my moral compass came not from God, but rather from cultural consensus or blind natural forces, I would probably be less inclined to take morality seriously.
More to come later; gotta go now.
How do you tell which parts are the word of God and which parts aren't?
You should be willing to question your morality. If believing that it is from cultural consensus makes you do that, that is a good thing. If believing that it comes from God makes you not do that, that is a bad thing.
And I could give you hundreds more disgusting ones. You are cherry picking because you choose to believe the "consistent message of the Gospel" is what you agree with instead of whatever you happen to disagree with. For every nice verse you post, I can post just as many if not more horrible ones. Fred Phelps would say that hating **** is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, savages in Uganda would say that burning witches is part of the consistent message of the Gospel, and a few U.S. presidential candidates would say that denying gays message is part of the consistent message of the Gospel. If you really cannot see the "immorality, hatred and intolerance" in the Bible (as you stated before), then you're willingly ignorant.
Yes, you did. Look up what the definition of association fallacy is again. You're attempting to take the negative qualities you associate with Fred Phelps and extend them to all Christians just because Fred Phelps identified as one. That's guilt by association.
I will agree that he's cherry-picking, and that there's plenty in the Bible about hating gay people.
But I would counter that there's absolutely nothing that says one needs to follow the entire Bible.
He would be incorrect in saying so, just as Pandas would be incorrect in saying that the Bible gives a consistent message to not hate gay people.
I was looking for the words to some up my opinion on why christianity/religion in general is unappealing to me, and lo and behold here they are. I'm actually surprised that this wasn't a foreseen objection in the OP.
"A Plague on All Your Houses!" - Thespian's Stage Pox
I am most confident that a message is divine in origin if it seems least like a message that a human would've invented. I am certainly not ignorant of other religions; and Christianity strikes me as unique in the way that it minimizes the worth of human effort while maximizing the importance of God's grace. Other religions emphasize taking the right actions (i.e. observing the Five Pillars of Islam, following the Eightfold Path of Buddhism) as a way people can "get right" with God or the Universe. People like to feel important and these religions confirm that feeling. So far as I know, only Christianity emphasizes the intrinsic insignificance of human beings, while reminding us that we can have hope because of the significance that is imputed to us by God's love.
I certainly do question my own understanding of morality. I simply don't entertain the thought that morality itself is something which, being naturalistic and utterly irrelevant aside from my standing as a member of a society, can be easily discarded under duress or as a matter of expedience.
Look, I'll level with you. I'm frankly not that interested in the Old Testament. I'm not Jewish. I'm not interested in defending Yahweh's actions in the Pentateuch. Christ is for both Jews and Gentiles; and "Gentiles" like me don't need to embrace Judaism in order to embrace Christ.
So if you'd be so kind as to narrow your focus to the New Testament, I defy you to find a single verse that commands a Christian to act cruelly or hatefully towards a non-Christian. Yes, there are still anti-gay verses, where Paul says that homosexuals (amidst a laundry list of others) will not inherit the kingdom of God. But you know what? Never once did he command his audience to treat gays any differently than other non-believers, i.e. with respect and humility and inoffensiveness.
Is the Hellenistic idea of the Fates very likely to have been divinely inspired?
This is a silly metric - just because people generally like to feel important doesn't mean that they are incapable of expressing the idea that they might not be. Lots of philosophies have included ideas of predestination, fate, determinism, etc., which minimize our role in deciding our future.
Why does something being naturalistic make it irrelevant? That's just nonsense.
If we found one, would you do anything other than deny that that particular verse is the word of God?