A_Wanderer said:
We are reminded incessently that religious tomes empart good morals to live by even though it is demonstrable that those same texts also contain commands to immorality.
Ok, it's 11:31 P.M., I've got work tomorrow and I really should go to bed but. . .I'm going to go ahead and tackle this anyway.
First off I can't speak for all religious tomes because my knowledge and experience with them is far too limited. I can only speak for the religious tome to which I subscribe which is the Bible.
And so I will address the question as it relates to the Bible.
As far as I'm aware nowhere in the Bible is immorality "commanded." There is a lot of immorality in the Bible. There's a lot of immorality done by those who are supposed to be the "good guys", the followers of God. But I don't see immorality being commanded.
So the first thing you'd have to do is not merely SAY that the religious tome, (in this case, the Bible), demonstrably contains commands to immorality, but actually demonstrate it.
Now the weakest part of my argument definitely has to do with God's commands to kill people. They're in the Bible. . .we all know they are. . .the commands to slay this person and smite that nation-- man, woman, and child e.tc.. We know the commands are there, let's face them head on. They are most definitely commands to do something immoral, aren't they?
Perhaps. But then perhaps not.
First off, if you don't consider warfare to be inherently immoral but sometimes necessary, then that addresses many of the "God commands to kill" stories. If you are okay with the necessity for warfare (and I'm pretty sure A_W, that you are) then you can't really fault God for sending his people into battle either. I think it's important to keep in mind that when God said "go up against this nation and destroy them" these weren't peaceful tribes of non-believers going their own merry way. These were tribes every bit as warlike if not more so than Israel, and surely would have destroyed them if given the chance. The Old Testament was written in brutal times, no question about it, and it reflects that brutality.
If you're not so okay with war (like me), I'll concede these passages could be more problematic--though even I understand that sometimes war is necessary--however horrific it may be.
Beyond warfare related issues, there's not much other evidence in the Bible that I can think of where immorality is commanded.
A_Wanderer said:
The solution to this is that people select the real "message" of the texts and emphasise the positive morals while downplaying the negative ones.
I'm curious as to why it is necessarily a bad thing to select the message of the text? What could possibly be wrong about trying to understand the context, culture, history etc behind a particular story. In fact it's the people who insist on taking the Bible absolutely at "face value" that I distrust the most. They're usually the most fanatical and extremist of believers. It seems to me unfair and extreme to expect that the Bible must not be analyzed or interpreted at all, but should just be taken "as is." Granted there is the potential for people to twist or misrepresent what the Bible says to fit their own agenda, but isn't that true of just about everything else too?
A_Wanderer said:
[BThis discriminating of what we believe is done by human beings, so how can it be said that morality is defined by belief when we define our belief around our social constructions of morality. [/B]
I'm not sure I agree that your statement that morality is defined by belief is applicable to all the believers. I'm not sure it applies to me. For this believer, morality is determined by reason, logic, and the sense of what is good, i.e. safe, helpful, enriching, for society and for individuals. I choose my faith, in a sense, based on what best represents morality as I understand it. For me, my faith is rooted in the concept that God is love. This fits with a reasonable, logical view of morality--love as the ultimate Good, the ultimate Power in the universe. Because that's what my faith teaches, that's why I choose to be a believer. At some point, if you feel that your faith system consistently lines up with a reasonable, logical morality, you feel you can trust it enough to say, "Well, if God says this is immoral, then I believe Him, though I personally can't see 'what's wrong with it.' After all His track record has been great so far, so I'll go with it, expecting the reasonable, logical pieces will fall into place eventually." And thus we arrive at the place where belief defines morality. Even then, for many--but not all--believers, the door to reason is never shut because these believers when encountering a morality that "doesn't make sense" are willing to consider at the very least that the problem may not be in what God says, but in their own fallible and human understanding of what God says.
I'm pretty exhausted so I hope all that made SOME kind of sense. Consider this my first volley. I'll refine and hone more as the discussion continues. I'm sure A_W and maybe others will have plenty to say in rebutal