Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

So you do think that witchcraft exists, and is immoral..and a sin?  What is the penalty for sin, and what does the NT say will happen to those witches?  Is there any specific part of the NT that countermands it;s consistent appraisal of witches and how they are to be dealt with?

Or are you looking for an excuse to sin and ignore magic book when it inconveniences your modern, secular, moral sensibilities and less than biblically credulous idea of whether or not old hags fly the night on greased broomsticks?

Does the NT distinguish between sins? The entire message of the NT is predicated on everyone sinning and bound for the same judgement. How is isolating one have any additional meaning? 

"BOB SAGET!!!"  

It's okay, Steve, to tell us that you don't believe in witches, or the sinful immorality of a thing that is not a thing....that maybe somebody fudged a few lines in magic book with that one. It's not as if god would turn you into a pillar of salt for it.

Or would he?

[Angrboda]

Are you suggesting that the new testament says that we are to abandon law altogether?  That seems a bit steep.

'Abandon' isn't the right word. The moral laws of the OT were summarized/encapsulated in the NT message/instructions and following them would ensure (and in some cases exceed) satisfying the OT prescriptions. The other civil and dietary laws were for another people in another context.

Well, let me put it to you in the form of a hypothetical. Let's suppose that all persons all over the world converted to Christianity. In that circumstance are we to ignore the strictures of the old testament? If so, are we to abandon the institution of law altogether? If not, what are we supposed to use as the basis of our formulations about law? Jesus said that loving thy God with your all, and loving thy neighbor as one loves themselves and that "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” It seems rather strange that Jesus is here justifying the law if he is supposed to have abolished it. Regardless, are we to simply punt on issues such as abortion, or are we to in some sense attempt to divine the appropriate legal guide from these two commandments, ignoring altogether what the old testament says? In short, would the new testament replace law in this brave new world? From where would our laws come?

[Minimalist]

There are so many variants of jesusism that they'd still find a reason to kill each other.

[Mystic]

In other words, you want to define morality per your desires and are upset that Theists look for God to judge for us.

[The Grand Nudger]

How far along in your divinely mandated witch killing quota are you, Mystic?  Seems like you might be able to reduce the curse-locked heart problem you're always telling us about if you did your sacred duty.

[Ravenshire]

What is this capitalised 'Natural Law' of which you speak and where may I read up on this? Outside of theology that is.

Google is your friend:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

He did say "Outside of theology."

From your link:

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source

(emphasis is mine)

[Catholic_Lady]

Google is your friend:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

He did say "Outside of theology."

From your link:

Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source

(emphasis is mine)

I misunderstood him. I thought he was asking for a non religious source explaining what natural law was.

Yes, Natural Law is tied to the belief that God exists and that we can understand and determine morality through reason and observation of the world. I never claimed otherwise.

[Cecelia]

If a religion teaches something is wrong, then the adherents of that religion are by definition, not bigoted or hateful for adopting it. They could be, but not necessarily so. 

The OT is not a stricter form of morality--not at all. Read Matthew 5.

Give me an example how Christianity, based on the NT (and not some other agenda) has "eventually [caught] up on some of the issues". It's nice to assert these things in support of your conclusion, but they are hard to refute when they are so vague.

Nope, they are by definition bigoted and hateful.  You don't get to use your religion as a 'get out of bigotry free' card.  Not at all.

Let's see... places where Christianity eventually caught up.

Slavery for starters.  The NT nor the OT outlaws it.  In fact Christianity was often used to defend the institution of Slavery during the Civil War.  These days you'll find only a few Christians (and usually they're bigots themselves) who espouse that Slavery was good and moral.  Jesus never once said anything like "Release your slaves!"  

Divorce.  The Catholics still have problems with it (though much less than they used to) but other Christians... woo boy.  They're perfectly okay with divorce these days.  Which is why their champion right now is an orange faced buffoon who has been married 3 times.  

The view on women, though only recently, has changed too. 

Heck the fact that most Christians just up and ignore the OT (except when it fits their conveniently bigoted views).  I mean Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.

---

In other words, you want to define morality per your desires and are upset that Theists look for God to judge for us.

Nope.  I'm asking you how confident you'd be standing before a Humanist God in how you've treated others.  You look for God to judge you -- by your own standards.  Standards by which you agree.   If you can't say that you've treated others  well (and I do mean ALL others.) then I wouldn't really call you a good person by any measure. 

I mean theists are always telling us to 'repent' because of what we've done to God.  I'm just turning the tables.  A humanist god may judge YOU on how you've treated other people.  I mean one has just as much chance of existing as your god.   I'm asking how comfortable you'd be standing before such a god, saying "But my religious text said..." as an excuse for mistreating people.

[Minimalist]

In other words, you want to define morality per your desires and are upset that Theists look for God to judge for us.

Yeah, because there is no fucking god, moron.

[Mystic]

If I follow my desires rather then guidance from God, I deserve to be in hell, as does everyone who does so.

It's quite simple morality is guidance, if we follow our desires instead of it, then it's the opposite of goodness by definition, as such it is evil.

No one is saying follow anything blindly, that's wrong, I believe however that only way we are going to see the path, is through help from God.

The door of light is the way out of the darkness. Darkness and settling it for it, and joking around in the filth, is the definition of evil.

I know what you are saying, because, it happens to be the case all false religions will follow clergy and laws blindly without proofs, and whoever does so, by definition is evil.

But within all religions, is the creed to seek the truth and follow it, and so for the searchers who are working in different religion paradigms and are only well versed in the paradigm they are in, they are not to blame.

God forbids obviously as you do blindly following and wants people to reflect and see the truth for themselves, there is no doubt in my mind about that.

And Muslims have utterly failed in this respect despite the book of God among them safeguarded.