Comments on: Flamefest

Flamefest

grahamwell — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:11:35 -0800

Hell - we've all thought about it, read about it (line 70 onwards 40% of the way down) and probably dismissed it as silly. Then along comes a choice candidate and the questions start again. Who would you put in hell, and why?

By: jonson

jonson — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:00:07 -0800

1) I thought exactly this same thing upon hearing this news, however 2) Saying most of us have probably dismissed the core tenents of Christianity as silly in your FPP is a bit of a derailer, and 3) as cleverly worded as the post was, it doesn't do much to let people know what the content was, which will lead to duplicate posts later on...

By: stonerose

stonerose — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:20:00 -0800

Looks cool, but the magnifier doesn't work for me (OS X, Safari). But since you asked: the current Pope and Dick Cheney, both for being nasty ideologues who have recklessly caused a lot of unnecessary suffering in the performance of their duties. Ta.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:21:59 -0800

which is more essential to humanity? a myth to be laughed at over cordials before the board meeting, or a place of appropriate torture and suffering for your opponents? please god, help me choose!

By: the fire you left me

the fire you left me — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:31:47 -0800

Garcin: So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wive's tales! There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS - OTHER PEOPLE! -Sartre, No Exit

By: Zonker

Zonker — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:41:31 -0800

Hell is not other people. Hell is an elevator full of other people.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:56:53 -0800

Saying most of us have probably dismissed the core tenents of Christianity as silly in your FPP is a bit of a derailer, and Is the existence of hell really a core tenet of Christianity? I've tried finding documented support for unquivocal descriptions of hell in the Old and New Testaments and it's pretty thin stuff. Most of the defenses I can find for the existence of hell are not exactly unbiased and the reasoning, if you'll forgive an infelicitous word choice, tortuous. I don't want to encourage proseletysing -- is anyone familiar with any impartial scholarship on this subject?

By: JollyWanker

JollyWanker — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:20:27 -0800

Interesting, George... As a non-Christian, I've not read the Bible closely enough to know for sure (oh, I have read it once, but with all that sex and violence, it became just a big blur after awhile...), but I have always thought that at least in the New Testament it wasn't so much the threat of being hurled into Hell as it was the threat of being kept out of Heaven? Or have I misread/misremembered it? Come to think of it, though, if the Western conception of Hell does not come from the Judeo-Christian bible, where did it come from? Did the Greco-Roman concept of the Underworld include active punishment for sins committed during one's lifetime? Regardless, the debate - at least for me - is at best academic. My personal beliefs don't include some judgmental process that determines your ultimate fate after you've died, rather that the conduct of your life while living it determines your fate all along. In other words, if there is a "Hell," then someone like, oh, say, Charles Manson is already living in it. Idi Amin would certainly qualify, but then having to live in Uganda in July or August may have been its own punishment. Pope John Paul II has been nominated by someone above, but I disagree, if only as a matter of degree - a Manson or an Amin does what they do because it's evil, the Pope is acting sincerely but causes incalcuable suffering.

By: kablam

kablam — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:36:27 -0800

How about the concept that "Hell" is a place for those who believe in Hell? The modern theological description of Hell is a place, "in the absence of God." Ironic, in that according to Kabbalism, the universe was created first by God contracting himself, to *create* a place where He did not exist, and putting, via a "lightning bolt" an almost infinitely replicating particle of himself in it, with the idea of creating a "mirror" to reflect himself (for only an instant before it ceased to be), it, the universe, a mirror big enough to reflect God, would answer His big question: "Is there anything that isn't Me?" Which would make all of reality Hell. But hell, you suspected that already, didn't you?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:44:04 -0800

oh, hell.

By: 111

111 — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:10:15 -0800

Info from the Catholic Encyclopedia here. Concerns about salvation

By: 111

111 — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:23:30 -0800

Sorry. I was going to say that concerns about salvation and the afterlife are inseparable from our ethic and moral choices. The fact that some people resent religious moral codes and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with these tenets says more about contemporary attempts to excuse every single behavior as "normal" than anything else. Basically, ideas about our souls' fate go back to very simple concepts, such as justice, right X wrong the outcome of our individual choices.

By: effer27

effer27 — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:26:32 -0800

Heaven and Hell are,to me, extensions of our limits as humans to understand the "whole thing". Our brains are too limited to comprehend everything in the universe and beyond, hence faith and the myths we derive out of it. I'm comfortable in my faith yet hold it no higher than the concepts and beliefs I find in others. We're all ants in different colonies.

By: the fire you left me

the fire you left me — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:57:50 -0800

The fact that some people resent religious moral codes and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with these tenets says more about contemporary attempts to excuse every single behavior as "normal" than anything else. Ah, of course. Don't concern yourself with the man behind the curtain, just follow the law set forth in the Book, just follow the law set forth in the Book. . .

By: dobbs

dobbs — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:00:56 -0800

Who would I put in hell? Reverend Fred Phelps and spammers.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:07:54 -0800

Interestingly, the norse version of hell was cold, not hot. Anyone who has experienced a scandinavian winter understands why.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:09:52 -0800

concerns about salvation and the afterlife are inseparable from our ethic and moral choices. You would seem to be saying that moral choices are bound to the fear of punishment and the hope of reward. This doesn't strike me as moral or ethical at all; quite the reverse. I would venture to suggest that if you make choices on this basis you are not makng them for moral reasons, you are making them out of fear or desire. This is essentially amoral.

By: HTuttle

HTuttle — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:15:53 -0800

Speaking of which, why do we give last rites to death row convicts before execution? Don't we WANT them to go to hell?

By: spazzm

spazzm — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:16:29 -0800

"I'm comfortable in my faith yet hold it no higher than the concepts and beliefs I find in others." How come you believe in your faith and not the faith of others, then?

By: stonerose

stonerose — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:31:20 -0800

a Manson or an Amin does what they do because it's evil, the Pope is acting sincerely but causes incalcuable suffering. Interesting points, JollyWanker. But (while I agree this is an academic debate) I think we need to take sanity into account when assigning people to their stations in the afterlife. That is to say, a sane person who causes others suffering (hell on Earth?) - whether in 'good faith' or otherwise - is much more hell-worthy than a madman. A lot of people would say that the scale of suffering inflicted should be taken into account. If that's so, Charlie Manson is pretty much a small-time evildoer.

By: Trik

Trik — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:40:06 -0800

The magnifier doesn't work for me either. Win98se / IE 6

By: stonerose

stonerose — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:42:20 -0800

The fact that some people resent religious moral codes and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with these tenets says more about contemporary attempts to excuse every single behavior as "normal" than anything else. Basically, ideas about our souls' fate go back to very simple concepts, such as justice, right X wrong the outcome of our individual choices. Gollygoshdarn, I wish I could've told that to those Saudi female students while they were resenting being burned to a crisp because of the religious code under which they lived and died.

But of course, Christianity doesn't cause arbitrary suffering like that, does it, 111. No, just the wrong religions do that.

By: Oriole Adams

Oriole Adams — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 18:54:24 -0800

I've been to Hell and back, and have the T-shirt to prove it.

By: JollyWanker

JollyWanker — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:16:57 -0800

stonerose: I think we need to take sanity into account when assigning people to their stations in the afterlife. If that's the case, should we extend it from sanity to simple awareness? Having seen the Pontiff recently - not personally, mind you, but on film - it seems relatively clear he's all but completely oblivious to his surroundings. While I recognize that Catholic doctrine does not afford the Pope the small luxury of "retirement," it does beg the question: where do we put him now?!

By: thomas j wise

thomas j wise — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:27:43 -0800

contemporary Only if "contemporary" is interpreted most generously. Universalism, for starters, has been around for a while.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:28:46 -0800

I was going to say that concerns about salvation and the afterlife are inseparable from our ethic and moral choices. And you wonder why some of us have concerns about your ethics and morals when they are based on imaginary concepts rather than genuine human relations and demonstrable ramifications and consequence? Manson only killed a few people; you would damn millions to the worst fate you are capable of imagining—who is worse?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:17:21 -0800

George Carlin : "When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you."

By: shoos

shoos — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:53:05 -0800

I can't decide which is more inspiring: reading a quote from Sartre on Metafilter or hearing LL Cool J recite Psalm 23 in "Deep Blue Sea"

By: 111

111 — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:57:47 -0800

concerns about salvation and the afterlife are inseparable from our ethic and moral choices. You would seem to be saying that moral choices are bound to the fear of punishment and the hope of reward. Not exactly: that's a surface understanding which seems to take only pavlovian reactions into account. The word I use is "inseparable", meaning indissociable but not restricted to those aspects. You must also take into account that we may be concerned about other people's salvation as well. This doesn't strike me as moral or ethical at all; quite the reverse. Why not? I would venture to suggest that if you make choices on this basis you are not making them for moral reasons, you are making them out of fear or desire. This is essentially amoral. Moral concerns have to do with the greatest good for the greatest number of people, including you. Moral practices are utilitarian. There is no point in altruism if it's not somehow linked to your own good as well. Even if you follow the Ten Commandments mostly or only out of a selfish yearning for salvation, it's still a highly moral and ethical decision, because you're 1) working towards your own good and 2) giving others a clear example of what you consider the best option. While compassion for all human beings is an important religious principle, at the end of the day individual conscience and individual acts are essential for salvation. stonerose, Christians and Christian institutions have made mistakes, like all human beings and every single major religion have. We have also done good things, I believe. But my sins are my fault exclusively, not Christ's.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:31:21 -0800

"Who would you put in hell...? Duh, Hell is for children.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:42:35 -0800

oh yeah, right. i nominate pat "bucky" benatar. hit me with your best shot.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:25:59 -0800

I've tried finding documented support for unquivocal descriptions of hell in the Old and New Testaments and it's pretty thin stuff. I've had a look through the bible just now, George_Spiggot, and you're right, even with the help of a concordance I can't find a good description of hell. Revelations speaks of a "lake of fire" into which the unsaved dead will be cast, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke describes the rich man as "being in torment in this flame", but that's about it. So many mentions of hell seem to be figurative, used in much the same sense as we use it when we describe a bad experience as hell. I think we need to take sanity into account when assigning people to their stations in the afterlife. If we were assigning people to their stations in the afterlife then yes, we'd ideally take all factors into account. Fortunately, even if there is an afterlife, it's not up to us. Good thing, 'cause we MeFiers would never come to any kind of a consensus. Oh, and for those of us who are hell-bound, here's a preview.

By: 111

111 — Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:38:55 -0800

Good thing, 'cause we MeFiers would never come to any kind of a consensus. Dante's eight circle, ninth abyss is supposed to be inhabited by sowers of discord and schism. Better watch out just in case.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:37:10 -0800

[from 111's Catholic Encyclopedia]: (hell is...) the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment; Humane (not!)

By: grahamwell

grahamwell — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 03:06:03 -0800

I've tried finding documented support for unquivocal descriptions of hell in the Old and New Testaments and it's pretty thin stuff. You're right. This is an earnest analysis which concludes that eternal suffering is a myth with no biblical support. Where did the idea come from? The Greek Hades doesn't really compare - it's not hot for a start. Perhaps the source is the Koran: "Every morning and every evening they will enter the Fire (40:46). After the Fire they will be drenched in boiling fluid that makes what is in the bellies and their skin to melt (22:19-20, 55:44). Between the Fire and boiling water they will eat the fruit of the Zaqqum tree that, like molten brass, causes a seething upset stomach and then they will gulp down large amounts of violently boiling water alternated with icy cold water (37:62-68, 38:58, 40:46,56:51-55). The guilty will beg their Lord to kill them and make an end of this punishment, but the Lord will reply, "Here you must remain" (43:77). They will wish they were but dust (78:40). But, the guilty are immortal and will endure the torments forever (43:74). " ... more here That's a description which would satisfy Joyces' preacher. Is it possible that the "christian" hell was imported from Islam? (I've a candidate. Someone has released a pop-up ad today which kicks ie into kiosk mode and simulates the action of the blaster worm ... grrrrr)

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:20:26 -0800

111: The fact that some people resent religious moral codes and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with these tenets says more about contemporary attempts to excuse every single behavior as "normal" than anything else. It seems rather obvious that the only "moral codes" that non-believers resent are the cultural ones that were intended to separate believers from non-believers (such as the sabbath), and to mandate a state religion (prohibiting other religious practice). Almost all non-believers consider wanton violence, dishonesty and breach of faith within family relationships to be bad things. The primary difference is that we do not consider these things bad because they displease a god that threatens torment, but they are bad because they harm our fellow human beings.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 10:32:34 -0800

is anyone familiar with any impartial scholarship on this subject? How would one define 'impartial' in this case? Any non-believer is going to be considered biased because of their lack of faith, and any believer is going to be considered biased because they have faith. Religion is like that. From a non-believers pov, however, I'll direct you here. Is it possible that the "christian" hell was imported from Islam? This is probably unlikely, since Islam is a somewhat younger religion that Christianity. Mohammad died in 632, and the book was said to have been written in his lifetime. Even given the debate over the book's origins, I don't think anyone claims it is older than the old prophet himself. The Christian conception of hell predates this, although nothing as developed as Dante's 14th century version.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:42:07 -0800

Any non-believer is going to be considered biased because of their lack of faith, and any believer is going to be considered biased because they have faith. "is going to be considered" by whom? That's an engaging generalization but it doesn't mean anything. You're saying that some people will question any source. Yes, that's obvious. But there is such a thing as religious studies and there are standards of scholarship that the religious and irreligious are held to equally. Are you saying that no impartial scholarship on the subject exists? On what would you base that assertion? From a non-believers pov, however, I'll direct you here. Thanks, but WikiPedia? And it doesn't mention any biblical basis, or lack thereof, which is what my question was.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:08:02 -0800

111, you write: Not exactly: that's a surface understanding which seems to take only pavlovian reactions into account. You do this a lot, I've noticed -- call someone's retort "shallow", "superficial", "high-school", and claim that your position is more sophisticated than that. But elaborate rationalizations that fall apart under examination are not sophisticated, merely evasive. When I said that your moral basis didn't strike me as moral at all, you asked: Why not? I don't know why you asked this, as you went on to quote my reason immediately below, thus: "I would venture to suggest that if you make choices on this basis you are not making them for moral reasons, you are making them out of fear or desire. This is essentially amoral." You then responded: Moral concerns have to do with the greatest good for the greatest number of people, including you. Moral practices are utilitarian. There is no point in altruism if it's not somehow linked to your own good as well. That's the elaborate rationalization that I referred to, and it's crap. You've confused Jesus with Gordon Gecko from Wall Street: "Greed is good. Greed clarifies." Show me that in the New Testament, if you can. A convenient definition of "moral" that elevates self-interest and "setting a good example for other's salvation" as you stated earlier, is a completely self-serving one. Again, it merely seeks rewards for oneself and seeks to avoid punishment. That it "sets a good example for others' salvation" is a convenient side effect (or would be if it were true) and doesn't make it any more moral.

By: clever sheep

clever sheep — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 05:59:53 -0800

Late but intense kudoes for KirkJobSluder and George_Spiggott. Detailed deconstruction of the usual crock from 111 with hardly an ad hominem in sight...it's a thing of beauty and a joy forever.

By: 111

111 — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:24:32 -0800

It seems rather obvious that the only "moral codes" that non-believers resent are the cultural ones that were intended to separate believers from non-believers (such as the sabbath), and to mandate a state religion (prohibiting other religious practice). No it doesn't-- it seems rather naive, not to say unrealistic to have you talking in the name of all non-believers worldwide. Contrary to Catholic or Muslim faith, which have precise written codes to guide their believers, there is no way to cluster non-believers into one single group morally speaking, since they widely differ among themselves as to which religious moral precepts are acceptable. Religious moral is much more strict than you seem to think; being a law-abiding citizen and a good family man ("Almost all non-believers consider wanton violence, dishonesty and breach of faith within family relationships to be bad things") are just two among several obligations from a religious perspective; abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality come to mind as instances of behavior that is considered immoral and aberrant by the church, thereby causing resentful chagrin to those who indulge in such vices and who'd rather not have to deal the Church's perspective. You do this a lot, I've noticed -- call someone's retort "shallow", "superficial", "high-school", and claim that your position is more sophisticated than that. But elaborate rationalizations that fall apart under examination are not sophisticated, merely evasive. Your opinion on moral is not only shallow (i.e, one-dimensional and crudely behaviorist), it's also counterfactual because it 1) wrongly dismisses all types of individualistic moral behavior as "amoral" and 2) does not take into account the finality of moral behavior in the context of salvation (that is, the fact that salvation can only be defined under the light of eternity vis-a-vis your whole life). Nothing you said even remotely suggests why doing good out of self-preservation is amoral-- as a matter of fact, it couldn't. Amoral attitudes do not take into count the the greater or the overall good, but the immediate interests of a given agent-- such as the acts of an animal or a child. Since salvation is the ultimate outcome of your whole conscious life, working towards it could obviously not be called amoral. Hence the poverty of your "fear-desire" interpretation. A convenient definition of "moral" that elevates self-interest and "setting a good example for other's salvation" as you stated earlier, is a completely self-serving one. You seem to exclude the possibility of individuals acting for their own salvation as moral, but this is precisely the opposite of Christian belief and even secular common sense; in order to help others, normal people must somehow help themselves along the way. Where do we learn that moral has to go against our own interests? Moral action has purposes which can be selfish without being detrimental to other people's well-being. If you'd like to offer an alternative definition of moral action or ethics, please entertain us. That it "sets a good example for others' salvation" is a convenient side effect (or would be if it were true) and doesn't make it any more moral. A "convenient side effect"? Of course being frank about your own notions of good and right entails a moral concern with others; "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and vice-versa. How could that be amoral or immoral? and if it could not be either amoral or immoral, what is it then?

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 08:34:56 -0800

I would venture to suggest that if you make choices on this basis you are not making them for moral reasons, you are making them out of fear or desire. This is essentially amoral. It's called human nature. Just the way things work. By the way, Jesus said if you call someone a fool you are in danger of hell fire. He spoke a lot about hell, and about being cast into outer darkness, where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Not a word about pitchforks tho.

By: Summer

Summer — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 09:05:53 -0800

Why does God want to torture people?

By: konolia

konolia — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:01:07 -0800

Why do people want to reject God's attempt to keep them out of a place meant for demons alone?

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:02:22 -0800

Your opinion on moral is not only shallow (i.e, one-dimensional and crudely behaviorist), it's also counterfactual because it 1) wrongly dismisses all types of individualistic moral behavior as "amoral" and 2) does not take into account the finality of moral behavior in the context of salvation (that is, the fact that salvation can only be defined under the light of eternity vis-a-vis your whole life). I have said nothing whatsoever to remotely support this interpretation. My position was that to be motivated by reward or punishment does not constitute acting morally, it constitutes acting out of self-interest. I have not offered my own definition of morality so you can hardly characterize it that way. It's your definition of moral that is crudely behavioristic -- you are motivated, as you admit, by self interest, and you make the bald assertion that all morality must include self-interest, which you have not substantiated. A person can choose to do good and avoid doing ill on its own merits. I'll go ahead and give my definition of moral: to choose to do right for no other reason than because it is right, without thought of reward or even recognition, and without a belief in the afterlife. I choose not to harm others not because I fear punishment or some other negative reaction onto myself but because it is inherently wrong to harm others when it's possible to avoid doing so. I also for example, give anonymously to programs to feed the hungry. I get no recognition for this, and I don't believe in an afterlife so I expect no reward. This is a moral act because hunger is suffering and I wish to reduce suffering. (By the way I do it anonymously not out of any noble martyrdom or self-sacrifice but because I don't want them wasting money and my time sending me begging letters for more -- I give when I can and when I'm moved to and I'd rather they spent the money helping people.) You might suppose that my reward is self-regard, and therefore I'm not going unrewarded. You might also suppose that the punishment I seek to avoid by not doing harm is a loss of my self-regard. But even if that's so, the mere fact that my self regard is bound to doing good or ill I think marks me as a moral person, so that would be no counterargument. I think that morality consists in doing right for its own sake, and that a definition of morality which is motivated chiefly by benefit or avoidance of loss to oneself is not moral. It's not immoral, merely amoral.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:18:00 -0800

BTW, I'm a firm beliver in the dictum "character is in what you do when nobody can see you." Not believing in a deity means that you do not imagine anyone with a capacity to judge and punish you can see you all the time. A person who is moved to do good and avoid doing ill under those circumstances is, IMHO, a moral person. That's not to imply that believers are not moral: it very much depends on what motivates them. If it is only the fear of divine punishment or the hope of divine reward that causes them to be good, then they don't act out of morality; their behavior is precisely as you say, crudely pavlovian: like that of a dog who avoids chewing up the furniture not because it is wrong to damage the things others have entrusted him with, but because he doesn't want to get yelled at and tied up in the yard. We have intelligence and conscience -- we can do better. We can be our own moral guides based on our knowledge of others' pain, without God standing over us with a rolled-up newspaper. If we cannot, then He created badly, and should probably throw us out and try again.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 12:02:12 -0800

111: No it doesn't-- it seems rather naive, not to say unrealistic to have you talking in the name of all non-believers worldwide. Contrary to Catholic or Muslim faith, which have precise written codes to guide their believers, there is no way to cluster non-believers into one single group morally speaking, since they widely differ among themselves as to which religious moral precepts are acceptable. Religious moral is much more strict than you seem to think; being a law-abiding citizen and a good family man ("Almost all non-believers consider wanton violence, dishonesty and breach of faith within family relationships to be bad things") are just two among several obligations from a religious perspective; abortion, promiscuity and homosexuality come to mind as instances of behavior that is considered immoral and aberrant by the church, thereby causing resentful chagrin to those who indulge in such vices and who'd rather not have to deal the Church's perspective. I find it interesting that you accuse me of overgeneralizing among all non-believers, while simultaneously stepping in as the spokesperson for all believers. Of course, abortion and homosexuality are two issues that are hotly contested within Chistianity. Although it is not clear whether you are talking about "the church" (the communion of all Chistian saints) or "The Church" (The Roman Catholic Church) here. Sexual mores are also not universal among religions with Paganism having fairly open acceptance of many different froms of sexuality. In fact, our puritan forefathers were apparently not scandalized by the fact that the majority of first-born children were born less than 9 months after the wedding. The church also is not entirely consistent in its interpretation of the moral code. The New Testament is far more explicit about what constitutes good Chistian monitary policy than homosexuality or abortion and yet, the latter issues dominate contemporary debates far more than the mandates to live simply and take care of the less fortunate. But in general, I do think that on the big issues, secular people and religious people agree on most moral laws. I also think that you would be suprised to find that just as Chistians disagree on homosexuality and abortion, so do non-believers.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 27 Aug 2003 05:07:18 -0800

Metafilter: sowers of discord and schism.