The bible says homosexuality is a sin, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying that these motivations are basically humanistic, irrespective of the religious garb that covers them. The message is that all humans should be treated with respect. Jesus said something like that -- so did revered figures from other religions. But religions can also include a lot of conflicting beliefs are are not humanistic and are in fact cruel. It's the common humanistic beliefs that positively motivate religious people to do good for others.

You seem to be conflating altruism, religion and humanism, and I'd argue that you don't seem to understand any of these very well.

In fact, some would argue that altruism itself is motivated by survival instincts, and is passed by genes in various species to different extents. These people would argue that it makes no sense to assume either (a) religious OR (b) secular humanist motives. So they'd accuse you of babbling about the existence of secular humanist motives. But I digress.

Your main problem here is understanding categories, and the idea of things being "mutually exclusive." If I could draw a Venn diagram I would, but maybe this will work.
(a) Nobody has to be altruistic.
(b) There is, however, a universe of altrustic people.
(c) For the universe of altruistic people, the motivation is
(1) a religion; or
(2) a secular humanist philosophy.
Note that (1) and (2) are the sources of these altruistic values . But also, (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.

Clear now?

religions and secular humanism are not mutually exclusive -- they have much in common. They usually differ in that secular humanism does not have a supernatural diety. but some religions don't have a supernatural deity either, like buddhism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A thought to mull over:

If Christ appeared today and preached the very same message he did 2000 years ago, how many of those who profess to believe in him and his teachings, would listen to him?

A good question.

I don't know the answer. There are plenty of historical figures who opposed injustice based on their Christianity; I like to think they would listen to Jesus now. Many fundamentalist Christians don't seem to think of Jesus as a radical activist for social justice, but that's what he was. Similarly, many atheists dismiss Jesus as an activist and completely overlook the Christians who drove the abolition movement in the U.S. or died in concentration camps for actively opposing Hitler. Go figure.

I like to think those people acted as they did because they were good people (Christians or not) who were doing what was right for humanity -- not simply because the deity they worshipped would guarantee a place in heaven for them if they followed the example set forth for them in an ancient book, and who would otherwise send them to hell

You have your own "beliefs" about what motivated these people, then, and according to your "beliefs," religion couldn't have played a role, also religion is only about the fear of hell. However, if you asked them, though, they'd probably tell you that their innate moral sense and their religious beliefs were acting in concert, in fact their religious beliefs informed their sense of morality and justice.

No according to my "beliefs" it wasn't necessary for religion to play a role. some people were motivated by their religious beliefs, but others without those beliefs and/or with different beliefs,were motivated to do the same things, because they were simply good, humanistic things to do -- that's the "innate moral sense" you mention - beliefs in a supernatural deity with a set of ancient rules attached to it are not needed for this.

You're actually a great example of conflict between the facts and your own beliefs. I second the other PP in suggesting that you read up on historical figures (abolitionists, Civil Rights workers, Ghandi, others) who wrote and spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in guiding their moral values. Key here is that they talk about how their motivation came from the religious values themselves, not just the fear of hell that you want to use as a convenient way to dismiss religion. You simply can't "choose to believe" that religion played no role, or merely a negative role (fear), in these peoples' lives.

That strengthens the case that religious values and humanist values can be the same. I DO believe that religion played a role in some people's good works, and that it is motivated by the underlying humanism -- thus no fear of hell -- which would play a part in the decision of some religious people to do good works.

[Anonymous]

Speaking for myself, as a Christian, heaven and hell don't enter into my thinking at all in terms of how I lead my life and follow the teachings of Christ. It is perhaps the reason why the pitch for salvation that is preached by evangelists does not do anything for me.

I also have a great deal of faith in God's goodness, mercy and wisdom and therefore many of the strictures that are advocated by conventional Christians in terms of leading a "righteous" life does nothing for me.

I have a vivid recollection of watching a program where an evangelist who was emphasizing the importance being saved, said that Gandhi because he was not a Christian could not achieve salvation but if Hitler had repented before he died and was "born again", he would attain salvation despite all of his inhumanity!

Of course, the "born again" Christians would cite passages from the Bible to explain this but as always it is a selective approach that ignores other teachings of Jesus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying that these motivations are basically humanistic, irrespective of the religious garb that covers them. The message is that all humans should be treated with respect. Jesus said something like that -- so did revered figures from other religions. But religions can also include a lot of conflicting beliefs are are not humanistic and are in fact cruel. It's the common humanistic beliefs that positively motivate religious people to do good for others.

You seem to be conflating altruism, religion and humanism, and I'd argue that you don't seem to understand any of these very well.

In fact, some would argue that altruism itself is motivated by survival instincts, and is passed by genes in various species to different extents. These people would argue that it makes no sense to assume either (a) religious OR (b) secular humanist motives. So they'd accuse you of babbling about the existence of secular humanist motives. But I digress.

Your main problem here is understanding categories, and the idea of things being "mutually exclusive." If I could draw a Venn diagram I would, but maybe this will work.
(a) Nobody has to be altruistic.
(b) There is, however, a universe of altrustic people.
(c) For the universe of altruistic people, the motivation is
(1) a religion; or
(2) a secular humanist philosophy.
Note that (1) and (2) are the sources of these altruistic values . But also, (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.

Clear now?

religions and secular humanism are not mutually exclusive -- they have much in common. They usually differ in that secular humanism does not have a supernatural diety. but some religions don't have a supernatural deity either, like buddhism

Check out this new research: It’s Official: Religion Doesn’t Make You More Moral
A recent study comparing views on morality of religious and non-religious people found something surprising: Religion doesn’t make our everyday lives more moral.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/it-s-official-religion-doesn-t-make-you-more-moral.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm saying that these motivations are basically humanistic, irrespective of the religious garb that covers them. The message is that all humans should be treated with respect. Jesus said something like that -- so did revered figures from other religions. But religions can also include a lot of conflicting beliefs are are not humanistic and are in fact cruel. It's the common humanistic beliefs that positively motivate religious people to do good for others.

You seem to be conflating altruism, religion and humanism, and I'd argue that you don't seem to understand any of these very well.

In fact, some would argue that altruism itself is motivated by survival instincts, and is passed by genes in various species to different extents. These people would argue that it makes no sense to assume either (a) religious OR (b) secular humanist motives. So they'd accuse you of babbling about the existence of secular humanist motives. But I digress.

Your main problem here is understanding categories, and the idea of things being "mutually exclusive." If I could draw a Venn diagram I would, but maybe this will work.
(a) Nobody has to be altruistic.
(b) There is, however, a universe of altrustic people.
(c) For the universe of altruistic people, the motivation is
(1) a religion; or
(2) a secular humanist philosophy.
Note that (1) and (2) are the sources of these altruistic values . But also, (1) and (2) are mutually exclusive.

Clear now?

religions and secular humanism are not mutually exclusive -- they have much in common. They usually differ in that secular humanism does not have a supernatural diety. but some religions don't have a supernatural deity either, like buddhism

Check out this new research: It’s Official: Religion Doesn’t Make You More Moral
A recent study comparing views on morality of religious and non-religious people found something surprising: Religion doesn’t make our everyday lives more moral.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/it-s-official-religion-doesn-t-make-you-more-moral.html

That's related to this thread.... how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No according to my "beliefs" it wasn't necessary for religion to play a role. some people were motivated by their religious beliefs, but others without those beliefs and/or with different beliefs,were motivated to do the same things, because they were simply good, humanistic things to do -- that's the "innate moral sense" you mention - beliefs in a supernatural deity with a set of ancient rules attached to it are not needed for this.

You're actually a great example of conflict between the facts and your own beliefs. I second the other PP in suggesting that you read up on historical figures (abolitionists, Civil Rights workers, Ghandi, others) who wrote and spoke eloquently about the importance of religion in guiding their moral values. Key here is that they talk about how their motivation came from the religious values themselves, not just the fear of hell that you want to use as a convenient way to dismiss religion. You simply can't "choose to believe" that religion played no role, or merely a negative role (fear), in these peoples' lives.

That strengthens the case that religious values and humanist values can be the same. I DO believe that religion played a role in some people's good works, and that it is motivated by the underlying humanism -- thus no fear of hell -- which would play a part in the decision of some religious people to do good works.

You need to decide what you're talking about. It seems all muddled in the above quote.

You can say this: "religion is motivated by underlying humanism." Many of us would disagree, but the difference is about having faith, or not.

You cannot accurately say this: "Some peoples do good works and they think they're being motivated by religion but actually they're being motivated by underlying humanism." No, the record from Gandhi, MLK and others is that they believed they were motivated by religious principles and by their faith in higher powers. You're attributing motives to these people that they themselves would strenously deny - don't you think they know their motives better than you do?

[Anonymous]

Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

did you notice that you are putting words into my mouth? I'm offering explanations for any humans who are motivated to do the same kind of good things for humanity by different conscious motivators, suggesting that they originate from a common source - our innate morality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

did you notice that you are putting words into my mouth? I'm offering explanations for any humans who are motivated to do the same kind of good things for humanity by different conscious motivators, suggesting that they originate from a common source - our innate morality.

Can't you hear how idiotic, not to mention arrogant, you sound?

You: "I'm sure there is no God. Therefore it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe* in God and it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe" that religion is the source of his motivation to do good works."

You make zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

This is illogical. It's also fascinating that you seem to have such a deep need to "prove" that religion didn't motivate major historical figures who clearly believed and communicated that it did. I'm not a Christian myself, but it puzzles me that someone who is comfortable with her or his atheism would have such a strong need to argue against the record like this. Who are you trying to convince?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

This is illogical. It's also fascinating that you seem to have such a deep need to "prove" that religion didn't motivate major historical figures who clearly believed and communicated that it did. I'm not a Christian myself, but it puzzles me that someone who is comfortable with her or his atheism would have such a strong need to argue against the record like this. Who are you trying to convince?

An analogy would be religious folk who deny evidence of historical evolution because they think it conflicts with their faith.

Here we have an atheist who denies the historical record because she thinks it conflicts with ... atheism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

Putting words into my mouth again - in quotes, no less. Also being personally insulting, which of course I don't like, so I'll leave this thread to others. Perhaps people reading through can discern from themselves to value of different arguments, which are pretty well laid out.

did you notice that you are putting words into my mouth? I'm offering explanations for any humans who are motivated to do the same kind of good things for humanity by different conscious motivators, suggesting that they originate from a common source - our innate morality.

Can't you hear how idiotic, not to mention arrogant, you sound?

You: "I'm sure there is no God. Therefore it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe* in God and it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe" that religion is the source of his motivation to do good works."

You make zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because all people can be moral and do the right thing for other people and because these people can be motivated by different religions or no religion at all, it seems pretty clear that it is not a particular supernatural belief system that is the underlying cause of their behavior.

The one thing they all have in common is that they are human, thus it's logical that it's their humanity that is the ultimate motivator

You keep making the same logical fallacy: a type of syllogism. Your flawed reasoning could also be put into some other logical fallacy buckets (e.g., starting premise that is not universally shared), but let's stick to your syllogisms.

You say:
-- Cats and dogs are both animals. I have a pet animal. Therefore, my cat is actually a dog.
-- Shacks and mcmansions are both dwellings. I live in a dwelling. Therefore, my shack is actually a mcmansion.
-- Religion and humanism are both sources of motivation for humans. Ghandi was a human and he was motivated to do good works. Therefore, he must be a humanist and not a religious person.

It's amazing that you keep attributing "motivations" to people who wrote and spoke very clearly and eloquently about their own motivations. If Gandhi were a secular humanist, he would have written about that. Instead, he wrote very eloquently about his spirituality.

You really need to stop putting words into the mouths of people like Gandhi....

>deleted wrongly inserted text and re-entered it below<

did you notice that you are putting words into my mouth? I'm offering explanations for any humans who are motivated to do the same kind of good things for humanity by different conscious motivators, suggesting that they originate from a common source - our innate morality.

Can't you hear how idiotic, not to mention arrogant, you sound?

You: "I'm sure there is no God. Therefore it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe* in God and it's impossible for Gandhi to *believe" that religion is the source of his motivation to do good works."

You make zero sense.

Putting words into my mouth again - in quotes, no less. Also being personally insulting, which of course I don't like, so I'll leave this thread to others. Perhaps people reading through can discern from themselves to value of different arguments, which are pretty well laid out.

[Anonymous]

OP, I have your answer.

When Jesus died on the cross, all of those regulations given to Moses and the hebrew people were technically eliminated. Not the 10 commandments, just all those other over the top rules given to Moses by God that he gave to his people.

However, the verses against homosexuality are beyond the Jewish regulations and continued after Jesus died. See Roman's 1:26. Therefore, they still apply.