At the point where you quote me on how belief in God does not, in my view, protect us from having our inherent moral sense from being twisted, as communism, jihad and the crusades are examples of how it can be done using religious or secular ideals, what exactly is the argument being made?
Possible readings of this:
1) Yes, religion can twist morality, thus religion has a gravity that is much deeper than pizza or sushi
2) Certain religions do this, which is why they are untrue and a bad choice, so it is not the same as choosing between pizza and sushi, which really is just a preference issue compared to picking a bad religion
There are probably other ways I can read this, but these seem the two most likely. Thanks for clarifying!
Jihad and the crusades... and how they are related to religion? The argument I am making is:
1) All humans have a knowledge of morality, and they impart that into their religions, cultures, nations, etc.
2) All knowledge of morality is flawed due to:
a) Deliberate rebellion against God (sin) and
b) Imperfect knowledge
3) Different individuals, cultures, religions, nations, etc have differently flawed knowledge of and relation to morality but
4) These are not at all the same. Some have more knowledge and are more in harmony; some less, all different. Thus one individual/culture/religion/nature might get humility right, and pride wrong; or murder right and lust wrong, or one might get one part of lust right and another part wrong; etc etc.
5) Thus what religion you belong to is one very important part of what your knowledge and relation to morality is. The different flaws, and depth of flaws, result in very, very different outlooks and actions.
Thus it wasn't the Amish that led the crusades, the Orthodox Jews who burned witches, and it isn't conservative Christians who are having their daughter's breasts cut off and their boys castrated.
So not only is the difference not the same as preference (leaving aside pineapple, which is a moral issue), but the bad religion (and lack of religion, which doesn't exist, but we'll go with it for a minute) will have bad results. Different bad religions, different bad results. Good religion badly applied, bad result. Good religion badly applied in a different way, different bad result.
Well written, but a quick clarifying question.
At the point where you quote me on how belief in God does not, in my view, protect us from having our inherent moral sense from being twisted, as communism, jihad and the crusades are examples of how it can be done using religious or secular ideals, what exactly is the argument being made?
Possible readings of this:
1) Yes, religion can twist morality, thus religion has a gravity that is much deeper than pizza or sushi
2) Certain religions do this, which is why they are untrue and a bad choice, so it is not the same as choosing between pizza and sushi, which really is just a preference issue compared to picking a bad religion
There are probably other ways I can read this, but these seem the two most likely. Thanks for clarifying!
See reply above.
Jihad and the crusades... and how they are related to religion? The argument I am making is:
1) All humans have a knowledge of morality, and they impart that into their religions, cultures, nations, etc.
2) All knowledge of morality is flawed due to:
a) Deliberate rebellion against God (sin) and
b) Imperfect knowledge
3) Different individuals, cultures, religions, nations, etc have differently flawed knowledge of and relation to morality but
4) These are not at all the same. Some have more knowledge and are more in harmony; some less, all different. Thus one individual/culture/religion/nature might get humility right, and pride wrong; or murder right and lust wrong, or one might get one part of lust right and another part wrong; etc etc.
5) Thus what religion you belong to is one very important part of what your knowledge and relation to morality is. The different flaws, and depth of flaws, result in very, very different outlooks and actions.
Thus it wasn't the Amish that led the crusades, the Orthodox Jews who burned witches, and it isn't conservative Christians who are having their daughter's breasts cut off and their boys castrated.
So not only is the difference not the same as preference (leaving aside pineapple, which is a moral issue), but the bad religion (and lack of religion, which doesn't exist, but we'll go with it for a minute) will have bad results. Different bad religions, different bad results. Good religion badly applied, bad result. Good religion badly applied in a different way, different bad result.
Thank you for the clarification!