When you can simply answer "That's how God wanted it," (which religion encourages you to do) then it becomes difficult to have a conversation on moral topics such as Same Sex Marriage. With religion comes a very stiff, rigid set of morals that are handed down to you (supposedly) from God. And there's no room for questioning it. That means ordinarily good people won't be able to look at themselves in the mirror and think "Maybe it's wrong for me to stop couples from getting married just because my god says so. God has a plan, and God is good."
Of course this all ignores a few things, such as the only source for "God is good" is.. well the bible, and supposedly God inspired that himself, so of course he's going to say he's good. That doesn't mean he is. But with the religious, there's no room for such an argument. His will is all that matters (might makes right). In which case religious morals are absolutely worthless because if God said "Go rape people" then that would be morally right by that standard. And people can say "Well, god wouldn't do that" all they want, but once you accept that might makes right, it doesn't matter.
An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard. After all, we gain new information every day. Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!" In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery. He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that. He couldn't give women equal rights either. Or really much of anything.
"Ahh," I hear the religious saying. "But god tells us to do some things you must agree are good. Like thou shalt not kill, and help the poor,' to which I say: That's a very black and white way to look at things. Can a dictator not have good rules? If Kim Jong Un outlaws murder and suddenly starts helping the poor, that doesn't really make him a good person. Many civilizations before the hebrews, and many afterward had rules like 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal'.
When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information. And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better.
Sometimes I wonder, if there were a humanist god -- how would religious people feel being judged by such a god? Would they be confident such a god would see them as good and just? They'll surely believe they are, because they're doing what they think god wants -- and they can, after all, only do what god asks of them. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I can't help but wonder if such a god were to judge them, how they'd feel about being judged as not a good person because they've followed their rigid code of morals, and allowed themselves to mistreat others when they've seen it as being kind.
Of course this all ignores a few things, such as the only source for "God is good" is.. well the bible, and supposedly God inspired that himself, so of course he's going to say he's good. That doesn't mean he is. But with the religious, there's no room for such an argument. His will is all that matters (might makes right). In which case religious morals are absolutely worthless because if God said "Go rape people" then that would be morally right by that standard. And people can say "Well, god wouldn't do that" all they want, but once you accept that might makes right, it doesn't matter.
An ever evolving set of morals is much preferable to a rigid set standard. After all, we gain new information every day. Now some people will say "Well, god has all the information!" In which case... you can still point out that God didn't outlaw slavery. He's got all the information, and couldn't even do that. He couldn't give women equal rights either. Or really much of anything.
"Ahh," I hear the religious saying. "But god tells us to do some things you must agree are good. Like thou shalt not kill, and help the poor,' to which I say: That's a very black and white way to look at things. Can a dictator not have good rules? If Kim Jong Un outlaws murder and suddenly starts helping the poor, that doesn't really make him a good person. Many civilizations before the hebrews, and many afterward had rules like 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal'.
When we allow our morals to evolve, we accept new information. And it allows us to treat our fellow human beings better.
Sometimes I wonder, if there were a humanist god -- how would religious people feel being judged by such a god? Would they be confident such a god would see them as good and just? They'll surely believe they are, because they're doing what they think god wants -- and they can, after all, only do what god asks of them. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I can't help but wonder if such a god were to judge them, how they'd feel about being judged as not a good person because they've followed their rigid code of morals, and allowed themselves to mistreat others when they've seen it as being kind.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
