Having a Video Game Character Commit Adultery

[Tarvos]

Religion is often actively discriminatory.

 

[Minish]

... which obviously only applies to people with benevolent beliefs, rather than "Eve ate the apple therefore women are second best!" because things like that should never be respected.

I know very, very many religious people who are not discriminatory, and certainly not actively discriminatory.

 

[Tarvos]

What is a "benevolent belief"? Benevolent by consequence or benevolent by nature? And if by nature, what would you define as "benevolent" exactly (and what kind of belief would invariably qualify as benevolent).

Religion, by virtue of proselytism (which Christianity and Islam, the main ones, encourage) inherently causes discrimination against other religion (not being able to partake in their rituals, etc).

Besides, if you believe the Bible, you are copying what the Bible says into your belief system (and I don't even wanna start on the Qu'ran). The Bible *is* inherently discriminatory. I can barely say one is a Christian when they cherry pick what they like from the bible to appear "benevolent" when in fact they are just ignoring the bad parts of their dogma to pretend to be a "good person".

 

[Minish]

What is a "benevolent belief"? Benevolent by consequence or benevolent by nature? And if by nature, what would you define as "benevolent" exactly (and what kind of belief would invariably qualify as benevolent).

Religion, by virtue of proselytism (which Christianity and Islam, the main ones, encourage) inherently causes discrimination against other religion (not being able to partake in their rituals, etc).

Besides, if you believe the Bible, you are copying what the Bible says into your belief system (and I don't even wanna start on the Qu'ran). The Bible *is* inherently discriminatory. I can barely say one is a Christian when they cherry pick what they like from the bible to appear "benevolent" when in fact they are just ignoring the bad parts of their dogma to pretend to be a "good person".

By benevolent belief I mean following things like the Ten Commandments, which are pretty much just good morals. Which is basically what most Christians I've met feel their religion is, and generally believe that their duty in life is to be as kind as loving as possible. They disregard the ridiculous parts of Christianity like the sexism, homophobia etc.

Proselytism is something that I would consider not a "benevolent belief". And it's ridiculously narrow-minded to state that all of religion, and all of religious people, believe in proselytism.

I'd say about 80% of Christians, in the UK most certainly, either disregard the Bible or know next to nothing what's actually in it. At the very least, the Old Testament is regarded as mythical guff.

What exactly is wrong with taking the good parts of the Bible and disregarding the rest? Religious eclecticism is, in my opinion, the best way forward. The modern day Christian belief -- where I live -- is that you just have to be loving, and believe in the son of a deity who spreads love, forgiveness and helpfulness wherever he goes.

If someone's going to call themselves a Christian, I would hope that they are a cherry-picker because that's the only way I'm going to be able to stand them. Plus, they tend to be the more self-aware Christians. Obviously the sensible thing to do would just be disregard the Bible entirely and have secular morals, but not everyone is prepared to or has considered doing that.

 

[Tarvos]

By benevolent belief I mean following things like the Ten Commandments, which are pretty much just good morals. Which is basically what most Christians I've met feel their religion is, and generally believe that their duty in life is to be as kind as loving as possible. They disregard the ridiculous parts of Christianity like the sexism, homophobia etc.

The ten commandments are actually hideously outdated and wrong. I don't think I'd use the ten commandments as a sane moral guide.

Proselytism is something that I would consider not a "benevolent belief". And it's ridiculously narrow-minded to state that all of religion, and all of religious people, believe in proselytism.

I am pretty sure not all Christians do but it's a central tenet of their dogmas.

I'd say about 80% of Christians, in the UK most certainly, either disregard the Bible or know next to nothing what's actually in it. At the very least, the Old Testament is regarded as mythical guff.

See, here's the issue. How can you call yourself a Christian when you know next to nothing about what is actually written in the dogmas you adhere to?

What exactly is wrong with taking the good parts of the Bible and disregarding the rest? Religious eclecticism is, in my opinion, the best way forward. The modern day Christian belief -- where I live -- is that you just have to be loving, and believe in the son of a deity who spreads love, forgiveness and helpfulness wherever he goes.

That's not a modern day Christian belief. That's a hypocritical belief. Besides, if you're cherry-picking what's good, what standards are you using? Secular ones? But in that case, why follow the Bible as a moral guideline when you already have one? Biblical ones? But in that case, you can't cherry-pick. Basically you are arbitrarily spouting things as morals that have no coherency or no value whatsoever. It's a random juggling of "this sounds good" without any nuance or consequence. The whole essence of Christian dogma is centrally believing in Jesus Christ as the saviour. If you're just going to pick out what you like, it's a fucking theological salad bar.

There is no sort of consistency in this.

If someone's going to call themselves a Christian, I would hope that they are a cherry-picker because that's the only way I'm going to be able to stand them. Plus, they tend to be the more self-aware Christians. Obviously the sensible thing to do would just be disregard the Bible entirely and have secular morals, but not everyone is prepared to or has considered doing that.

At least they should be aware of the possibility.

 

[Sage Noctowl]

The ten commandments are actually hideously outdated and wrong. I don't think I'd use the ten commandments as a sane moral guide.

Tell me what you mean by this. The ten commandments, broken down (in no specific order):
-Don't kill
-Don't steal. (Pretty basic.)

-You shall have no gods before me.
-Do not create false idols
-Don't use God's name in vain. (All basic beliefs that one would naturally adhere to by joining a religion.)

-Honor your mother and father (Not necessarily following every order, just respecting them, they are your elders)

-Don't bear false witness against others (Basically, don't lie about someone else)

-Don't steal (covet) others' goods or spouses
-Don't commit adultery (Both trying to avoid certain relations without measure. Side effects of ignoring this could be harmful to the person who carries it out.)

-Remember the sabbath (setting aside a day for religion)
Secondly, this is shortened to "Respect (love) others and respect (love) god."

I am pretty sure not all Christians do but it's a central tenet of their dogmas.

See, here's the issue. How can you call yourself a Christian when you know next to nothing about what is actually written in the dogmas you adhere to?

The new testement is just as it is called, a NEW testimony set apart by 'god'.

That's not a modern day Christian belief. That's a hypocritical belief. Besides, if you're cherry-picking what's good, what standards are you using? Secular ones? But in that case, why follow the Bible as a moral guideline when you already have one? Biblical ones? But in that case, you can't cherry-pick. Basically you are arbitrarily spouting things as morals that have no coherency or no value whatsoever. It's a random juggling of "this sounds good" without any nuance or consequence. The whole essence of Christian dogma is centrally believing in Jesus Christ as the saviour. If you're just going to pick out what you like, it's a fucking theological salad bar.

There is no sort of consistency in this.

As you say, this is an odd belief, taking and selecting certain things like others are meaningless. However, like you said, Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Savoir. He reformed Judaism. If Christians take everything before Jesus reformed it, then there's bound to be confusion. That's why we're not sacrificing any more. Christianity treats the products of Jesus as a trump card to anything that happened in the Old Testiment thus not "Let's throw stones at the adulterers," and more like "Respect them despite their doings, and hope that they change".

At least they should be aware of the possibility.

The point is, they believe in the religion, there's no point in them going and saying, "God isn't real because I don't like his beliefs." That's like saying (GODWIN'S LAW (now you can't take me seriously)) that Hitler can't kill you because you think his beliefs are stupid, and therefore he doesn't exist. At least Christianity has some sense of boundry and not HEEYY, let's kill everyone because they're not Christians, and more like, "maybe if we advertise Christianity in certain ways, more people may come and join us."

And wasn't the topic, "Having a Video Game Character Commit Adultery", and not "Religion is Moral/Immoral"?
Life would be much easier without the problem of Moral Relativism.

 

[Kurai]

The whole universe is God playing The Sims.

I was thinking the exact same thing!:sweatdrop: (I'm an atheist, though.)

 

[Tarvos]

Tell me what you mean by this. The ten commandments, broken down (in no specific order):
-Don't kill
-Don't steal. (Pretty basic.)

The first I can grant as a general guideline. The second is mostly true but circumstantial.

However, note: these commandments refer only to FELLOW JEWS. If they refer to other people, the rules can be revoked. Go and check the Bible if you don't believe me.

-You shall have no gods before me.
-Do not create false idols
-Don't use God's name in vain. (All basic beliefs that one would naturally adhere to by joining a religion.)

What is this utter fucking vanity? Surely a God that was righteous, would hold me to believe in him because I am doing the right thing, and not because of the risk of believing in someone else? These commandments are plain jealousy.

-Honor your mother and father (Not necessarily following every order, just respecting them, they are your elders)

What if my parents are child molesters and I have been sexually abused by them? No thank you.

-Don't bear false witness against others (Basically, don't lie about someone else)

this is all right I guess. but can be covered by other commandments or as a general "don't do unto other people things you wouldn't want them to do to you", which is basically the Golden Rule and this is a secular rule.

-Don't steal (covet) others' goods or spouses

redundant

-Don't commit adultery (Both trying to avoid certain relations without measure. Side effects of ignoring this could be harmful to the person who carries it out.)

Sometimes needing sexual relationships with more than one person is a good thing. I agree you shouldn't cheat, but there's nothing wrong with open relationships (although I'm not much for them).

-Remember the sabbath (setting aside a day for religion)
Secondly, this is shortened to "Respect (love) others and respect (love) god."

Why would I? If I enjoy working, why can't I work? Why do I *have to* rest because God said so? Also, why is God so keen on my love? I really think he's being a little kid that wants to be loved. God needs to grow up.

The new testement is just as it is called, a NEW testimony set apart by 'god'.

TestAment. It's not hard. Try it. Testament. Got it? Good.

As you say, this is an odd belief, taking and selecting certain things like others are meaningless. However, like you said, Christians believe Jesus Christ is the Savoir. He reformed Judaism. If Christians take everything before Jesus reformed it, then there's bound to be confusion. That's why we're not sacrificing any more. Christianity treats the products of Jesus as a trump card to anything that happened in the Old Testiment thus not "Let's throw stones at the adulterers," and more like "Respect them despite their doings, and hope that they change".

I suppose we're going to go down the route of "let's talk about the horrors of the new testament then" and I think we can deliberate there too for a good while, but I am too lazy to look up verses for you right now - the new Testament is marginally better than the OT, but not by much. Jesus is an ok character but definitely not someone to base your life on. Also, if the NT trumps the OT, why is the OT in your Bible? Doesn't make much sense to keep it still.

The point is, they believe in the religion, there's no point in them going and saying, "God isn't real because I don't like his beliefs."

Uh... what? You're just saying they believe because they believe. This argument is circular. God isn't real because I don't like his beliefs makes no sense but that's not what I'm saying. Nobody can prove or disprove whether any deity actually exists but that isn't the point - it's not probable that he exists anyway. And if we're taking the Bible as a guideline for what to believe, it's shit, OT or NT. Nice way of avoiding the problem, man!

That's like saying (GODWIN'S LAW (now you can't take me seriously)) that Hitler can't kill you because you think his beliefs are stupid, and therefore he doesn't exist. At least Christianity has some sense of boundry and not HEEYY, let's kill everyone because they're not Christians, and more like, "maybe if we advertise Christianity in certain ways, more people may come and join us."

I find this downright insulting. Who is saying atheism has no sense of boundary, or Islam? And like I said before - the 10 commandments refer only to fellow Jews. If you so wish to kill a person from another tribe, you're free to do so. I don't lack a moral conscience, quite the contrary - you'll find my behaviour is better regimented and implemented than many Christians.

Second, what people believe in is their own business. You have NO FUCKING RIGHT TO TELL THEM THAT YOUR BELIEF IS BETTER. I don't mind if Christians keep their beliefs about sky daddies and adulterers, but I don't want anything to do with them at all. I can decide for myself what good and bad beliefs are.

I spit on most Christian logic because it's heinously wrong and outdated, and I consider most of the beliefs fallacious. This is normal - I consider racist beliefs fallacious too. That doesn't mean I won't let them believe. I just hate being told what to believe.

And wasn't the topic, "Having a Video Game Character Commit Adultery", and not "Religion is Moral/Immoral"?
Life would be much easier without the problem of Moral Relativism.

Yes, if only we were all the same pious brethren, condemning those who do not believe in our particular fairy tale. Moral relativism is necessary - it accounts for nuances, changes in environment, the lot. But I'm sure you also enjoy communism and Big Brother states. Oh wait, all religious people hate commies. Wait, they have a doctrine too! Only it's not a particularly religious doctrine (it's Marxism). You have no idea of what you imply here.

If you're saying get back on topic sure, but I already gave my opinion on that - no one with a sane, healthy attitude towards life would give a fig about something as trivial as this. Spend your time worrying about something else.

May I remind you how many authors in works of fiction make their characters cheat, kill, rape, etc? Most of us consider that entertainment. It's a part of creativity, of stories, of reality. It's only healthy that we work it into fiction. Deprives us of the need to be a lying adulterer in reality.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

That's like saying (GODWIN'S LAW (now you can't take me seriously)) that Hitler can't kill you because you think his beliefs are stupid, and therefore he doesn't exist.

Everything was basically covered in Watershed's post but tbh this is really stupid example to pull considering Hitler can not, in fact, kill me, by virtue of his being dead.
We also know he existed for a fact.

 

[opaltiger]

The first I can grant as a general guideline. The second is mostly true but circumstantial.

They are both mostly true but circumstantial. If it were cited as "thou shalt not murder" then it would be generally true.

Don't steal (covet) others' goods or spouses

You're being disingenuous. The commonly accepted translation is covet, not steal.

 

[1. Luftballon]

other than the other gods part, they're almost all mostly true but circumstantial.

 

[Minish]

The ten commandments are actually hideously outdated and wrong. I don't think I'd use the ten commandments as a sane moral guide.

Neither would I, as it's horrifically simplistic. But the bottom line to it is "be a decent person".

I am pretty sure not all Christians do but it's a central tenet of their dogmas.

Sure, but not all of them see conversion in a "you have to believe what I believe" way, they see it as a way of saving others, just in a really warped and pretentious way. I'm only talking about the UK, by the way, I know in the USA it's a totally different matter.

See, here's the issue. How can you call yourself a Christian when you know next to nothing about what is actually written in the dogmas you adhere to?

Because the biggest rule of modern Christianity is "be a good person". Many Christians disregard the Bible or see it as something irrelevant.

But then, at the same time, they believe in the Christian god. I would still call those people Christians.

That's not a modern day Christian belief. That's a hypocritical belief. Besides, if you're cherry-picking what's good, what standards are you using? Secular ones? But in that case, why follow the Bible as a moral guideline when you already have one? Biblical ones? But in that case, you can't cherry-pick. Basically you are arbitrarily spouting things as morals that have no coherency or no value whatsoever. It's a random juggling of "this sounds good" without any nuance or consequence. The whole essence of Christian dogma is centrally believing in Jesus Christ as the saviour. If you're just going to pick out what you like, it's a fucking theological salad bar.

There is no sort of consistency in this.

Since when are hypocrisy and Christianity strangers? I'm not trying to say that they make sense, or defend their consistency, because I completely agree. But people who cherry-pick in a positive sense (i.e. taking the good stuff) tend to completely underestimate their own abilities. Christianity pretty much teaches that you're too human to think up your own morals, so you have to follow the Bible's. Modern Christians I know believe they're Christians just because they're good people, and tend not to have been shown any alternative.

 

[Ymedron]

Excuse me, but wasn't Christianity born when a jew called Jesus Nasaretian went around teaching that you should do good to fellow man, no matter their origin, and forgive your enemies?
Aka the 'Golden Rule'?

 

[Tarvos]

Excuse me, but wasn't Christianity born when a jew called Jesus Nasaretian went around teaching that you should do good to fellow man, no matter their origin, and forgive your enemies?
Aka the 'Golden Rule'?

That isn't what the Golden Rule entails, and it existed separately from Jesus. It was recorded in numerous other cultures. The popular attribution is to Jesus, but it isn't a Christian rule at all.

Edit: @Cirrus: Modern "Christianity" as you call it - I wouldn't call that Christianity anymore. Christianity requires the central tenet of believing in Jesus Christ as the saviour. Taking inspiration from elements of the Bible as your moral code does not make you a Christian. I can derive and trace some of my morals back to the Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian either.

 

[Autumn]

Edit: @Cirrus: Modern "Christianity" as you call it - I wouldn't call that Christianity anymore. Christianity requires the central tenet of believing in Jesus Christ as the saviour. Taking inspiration from elements of the Bible as your moral code does not make you a Christian. I can derive and trace some of my morals back to the Bible but that doesn't make me a Christian either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheist

Jesus, although not seen as divine, is still a central feature of Christian atheism. Most Christian atheists think of Jesus as a wise and good man, accepting his moral teachings but rejecting the idea of his divinity. Hamilton said that to the Christian atheist, Jesus is not really the foundation of faith; instead he is a “place to be, a standpoint”. Christian atheists look to Jesus as an example of what a Christian should be, but they do not see him as a God.

 

[Tarvos]

Doesn't see Jesus Christ as the saviour. Doesn't count. I would be ok with that sort of viewpoint.

 

[Minish]

If you take this viewpoint of Christianity then you are never going to find anything good in it, so what's the point? Is Christianity developing supposed to be a bad thing?

Christians have realised that the world is changing, and that old Christianity is just not relevant or feasible anymore. Some have realised that the book is horrifyingly racist, homophobic and otherwise ridiculous. So they've dumped those parts. Religion has never been a static thing, and that's the only thing that keeps me believing that it can be good.

 

[Tarvos]

If you take this viewpoint of Christianity then you are never going to find anything good in it, so what's the point? Is Christianity developing supposed to be a bad thing?

Christianity doesn't develop. Humans develop. I think this is the key point. Those that realise the world is changing and that they need to change their opinions because they feel those old opinions are not relevant or outdated should go the whole hog. There is no reason to hold on to those particular vestiges of Christianity, apart from a sense of vague nostalgia. What is calling yourself a Christian when you've practically done and stripped it of the entire, original core of its belief? The vague belief that humans are good and love comes from a source does not really actually need a Christian God or a belief in Jesus. It can take inspirations from a fictional tale of Jesus, but they take inspirations from so many other things now that calling it "religion" or "Christianity" is a bit of a mixed verb.

I am not saying the development per se is a bad thing (it's not, although I believe that if you are on that road you ought to be a bit more honest with yourself) but I understand humans need routine and tradition. I just prefer making my own traditions - in some ways it makes no sense to remove some particularly rusty ways of living, even though they are now old-fashioned. It is a human sense of conservatism.

Christians have realised that the world is changing, and that old Christianity is just not relevant or feasible anymore. Some have realised that the book is horrifyingly racist, homophobic and otherwise ridiculous. So they've dumped those parts. Religion has never been a static thing, and that's the only thing that keeps me believing that it can be good.

Actually, religion has, historically, always been a static thing. We can take the Catholic church as an example. Not until 1923 did the Church admit belief that the solar system was heliocentric. Religious people, those in doctrine and power, and those that have built their power and see it wane due to humans changing trends, cannot deal with the loss of it.

The norms of society change, and humans change with it. But a static religion is not religion any more by definition. It is just a vague sense of spirituality. Believe me being dynamic is a good thing but I disagree with the terminology you use rather than the content. It's a case of me being particular.

 

[Music Dragon]

I'm not saying you can't respect religious people. I'm saying you don't have to do so just because it's religion. People tend to expect that of you.

 

[Flora]

Topic: No, I don't think it's wrong. But I'm a weird little catholic being (heck, i'm sloooowly changing to agnosticism i think) so.

There's a couple things i disagree with in the ten commandments; obviously don't kill or steal because those things are horrible (IMO) but stuff like the whole adultery thing probably shouldn't be included; i mean, if you're married then obviously you shouldn't cheat on your spouse, and you shouldn't sleep with someone who's married, but if you truly love the person then there's nothing wrong with that in my book.

also because this is common cause for confusion:

What if my parents are child molesters and I have been sexually abused by them? No thank you.

I believe that there is an exception if the parent is telling you to do something wrong/ is abusive.

(also wait there's sexism in Christianity? my history teacher is the most fanatical feminist i've ever met and she's a nun.)