Religion stifles Moral Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

...what kind of immoral shit do you desire..................?

If all that's standing between you and depravity is some ghost...then there's nothing standing between you and depravity.

[SteveII]

'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?

I did not say Jesus came to abolish the law? Jesus' only instruction on how we should act was definitely not limited to his answer for what the greatest commandment was. In effect, he brought a stricter law because now it mattered what was on the inside. It did not contradict the moral law from the OT and it did not set it aside. That is why I say that morality for a Christian comes from the NT. 

Murder is not wrong simply because it is listed as the sixth commandment. Woven through nearly all doctrine is the value that God places on human life. There is no logical , theological, nor scientific reason to not extend that concept to an unborn child.

---

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.

Then you are simply changing the definition of 'bigot' and 'hateful'. Can't argue with someone who has their own definitions for words.

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!" 

Jesus did not come to rail against the laws of the day (the very powerful Roman empire). Slavery in that day was not a race thing. It was an economic issue. He address 'heart' issues. It is very hard to say that "Love your neighbor as yourself" can be construed to support slavery in any way. If people did use 'Christianity' to defend chattel, racial slavery, it would be a simple thing indeed to knock that argument down. It was Christians who were instrumental in outlawing it first in the British Empire and then in the US. 

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. 

Jesus was clear on divorce. It is certainly not an example of "moral evolution" because there is nothing new or different in science or society that would justify an evolved concept of it. 

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

FINALLY. Something with merit! I don't have time right now to research and write. I will get back to this.

[Angrboda]

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?

I did not say Jesus came to abolish the law? Jesus' only instruction on how we should act was definitely not limited to his answer for what the greatest commandment was. In effect, he brought a stricter law because now it mattered what was on the inside. It did not contradict the moral law from the OT and it did not set it aside. That is why I say that morality for a Christian comes from the NT. 

So, OT law or no OT law?  You seem to be waffling on this.  At the very least, your position is unclear.  Perhaps this is because it is not clearly defined.

Murder is not wrong simply because it is listed as the sixth commandment. Woven through nearly all doctrine is the value that God places on human life. There is no logical , theological, nor scientific reason to not extend that concept to an unborn child.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall
be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21:22-25, KJV

If things are as you say, then why is the penalty for this not death?

[SteveII]

I did not say Jesus came to abolish the law? Jesus' only instruction on how we should act was definitely not limited to his answer for what the greatest commandment was. In effect, he brought a stricter law because now it mattered what was on the inside. It did not contradict the moral law from the OT and it did not set it aside. That is why I say that morality for a Christian comes from the NT. 

So, OT law or no OT law?  You seem to be waffling on this.  At the very least, your position is unclear.  Perhaps this is because it is not clearly defined.

Murder is not wrong simply because it is listed as the sixth commandment. Woven through nearly all doctrine is the value that God places on human life. There is no logical , theological, nor scientific reason to not extend that concept to an unborn child.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall
be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Exodus 21:22-25, KJV

If things are as you say, then why is the penalty for this not death?

I think the misunderstanding in my position is you don't know what I mean when I say moral law of the OT. I mean things like the 10 commandments, things that God says are an abomination, etc. Take your examples, they are IF/THEN statements. These are examples of civil laws for a theocracy. While there might be something to glean from them, they are not instructions of general morality.

So, to answer your specific question, the penalty may have been death to an ancient Jew. The NT does not prescribe any guidance at all on civil law. The entire NT message, as it relates to morality, is about changing the heart.

[Astreja]

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

No.  No one "deserves to be in hell."  There are no exceptions to this.

And if we are unable to follow our desires, within reasonable parameters that respect the desires of other people as well, then we have no lives of our own and it is not possible for those lives to have genuine meaning for us.  The instant we resign ourselves to following the plans of other beings and denying our own plans, in essence we have forfeited our very lives and are mere puppets being played by someone else.

[drfuzzy]

This is one of the reasons I like this place.  I post something, some folks agree, some tear it apart.  I give it some thought and usually agree with most of the criticisms.
My assertion was that mostly fundamentalists attribute all of their moral guidance to their religion.

Of course, some replied that religion was the problem, fundie or liberal.  I actually agree.  The very fact that writings in the "holy book" can inspire people to kill other people because "god says so" proves that the holy book did not come from any deity.

So, sure, all religion is suspect.  But I think it's the religions that have a BOOK, that teach that the book is holy and perfect and unchanging, that are really dangerous.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No.  No one "deserves to be in hell."  There are no exceptions to this.

There's a sense of poetic justice about being stuck in a room for all eternity with people just like yourself. That could be either Heaven or Hell depending on the values, principles, and behaviors by which you lived.

[Astreja]

No.  No one "deserves to be in hell."  There are no exceptions to this.

There's a sense of poetic justice about being stuck in a room for all eternity with people just like yourself. That could be either Heaven or Hell depending on the values, principles, and behaviors by which you lived.

Sounds like a good idea for a play, only Sartre already wrote it.