Entry 231, on 2005-10-04 at 14:42:23 (Rating 2, Religion)
I read another interesting religious commentary in our local paper today. The religious columnist was talking about a survey conducted in Britain aimed at establishing a new set of ten commandments. He correctly points out that the methodology wasn't great, and that too much shouldn't be read into the results. But the outcome was interesting anyway.
Only three of the original Biblical commandments survived in some form. All of the commandments relating to religious duty and obligation to God were gone, showing that organised religion is no longer a serious force. The three that remained were really just essential elements for survival of a cooperative society. So it seems to me that the influence of Christianity is greatly reduced.
These are the commandments established by the survey: protect your family, never be violent, look after the vulnerable, protect the environment, don't steal, be honest, don't kill, take responsibility for your actions, treat others as you would have them treat you.
This seems to indicate that people can invent a pretty sensible set of morals without the need for religious guidance or instruction from some sort of supernatural entity, although I do concede that some of the commandments are similar to those found in various religious texts. Of course, its the religion which is reflecting people's beliefs, not the other way around. How relevant are the Biblical commandments to the modern world? Not very!
The commentator took the opposite view: that Christian belief still had a strong influence. It would be nonsensical to pretend that Christianity has no influence on people's beliefs, but the evidence seems to indicate is lessening rapidly. Maybe people are finally ready to grow up and think things out for themselves, instead of relying on myths.
Its also interesting that a lot of the commandments are connected with more left leaning politics (protect the environment, look after the vulnerable) which doesn't really reflect the political reality in Britain. How does joining the war in Iraq reflect the wish to not kill, for example?
Are you a christian atheist? What I mean by that is that you claim to be atheist but come from a christian background and assume that anyone with any religion is christian. The fact is that christianity is nowhere near the largest religion. Christianity (modern christianity, at least) has no impact on any of the other religions.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2005-11-17 at 10:03:36:
New Zealand is really a secular country, although we obviously have ties to a Christian past. And Christianity is still the biggest religion here. I don't have a religious background, although I have been to several Christian churches, just because they are by far the most numerous.
I think you will find Christianity is the largest religion - have a look at the stats for world religion: 33% Christian, 21% Islam, 14% Hindu (source: http://www.adherents.com/).
Comment 3 by godlovesme77 on 2007-03-16 at 04:44:52:
Actually, the most rapidly growing religion is NOT Christianity. It's Mormonism. Statistics on MULTIPLE websites state that if the rate continues as the same, in ten years, about five to seven more countries will have converted to Mormonism as their main religion.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2007-03-16 at 09:11:58:
I didn't mention anything about the growth rate of religions here, did I? Mormonism isn't a major revision, its really just a subset of Christianity. I think I read that Islam is the fastest growing major religion. I'd have to check that though.
Comment 5 by WF99 on 2007-08-14 at 09:22:23:
I'm entering the discussion late (again), but I just wanted to point out the difference between unjustified killing and justified killing. Capital punishment is a necessity. And I view the Iraq war as an act of self-defense.
Comment 6 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 09:39:22:
OK, two questions for you. One. How do you justify the opinion that capital punishment is necessary? And two. in what way is the war in Iraq self defence? Defence from what exactly?
Comment 7 by WF99 on 2007-08-14 at 10:33:15:
What course of action do you believe should be taken for a murderer? Also, the U.S. was attacked first, was it not? It only makes sense to eliminate the threat of another attack. But the debate surrounding the war is outside of the realm of Christianity altogether, and I'd rather not get into it.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 10:47:43:
I don't think the death sentence should ever be used. First, there have been too many errors where innocent people have been executed. Second, its morally wrong to punish the crime of killing someone by doing exactly the same thing to the offender. Third, murder is a complex thing. Sometimes its is more justifiable than others. Where do we draw the line where the death sentence is justified? And finally, the western world condemns the use of severe punishment in the Muslim world. How hypocritical is it if we then execute people ourselves?
Comment 9 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 10:49:39:
And one other thing: when exactly did Iraq attack the US? I must have missed that one! And its not entirely outside the discussion area. Didn't your nutty leader once say that God told him to attack the enemy?
Comment 10 by WF99 on 2008-01-30 at 13:11:15:
Ah, must've overlooked this post.
First, I've really re-thought my stance on the death penalty since my last comments, and don't really see the sense in it.
Secondly, I realize that Iraq never attacked the U.S., but there was a threat of another attack from Iraq, and I really believe that the reason no weapons were discovered there was because the U.S. pretty much gave plenty of warning before they raided the country.
At any rate, whatever hole the U.S. is in right now, backing out of the war won't help things any. (In the long run, anyway.)
Comment 11 by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 13:41:14:
I think its the sign of true civilisation when a state doesn't kill its citizens, no matter what they do. Of course, I don't know how I would feel if someone murdered one of my family, for example.
I don't accept your justifications for the attack on Iraq. We're talking about over 100,000 *innocent* people killed here. That's far more than Saddam Hussein ever killed. Was the punishment justified by the threat? I don't think so. And I think the consensus is that the weapons never existed, not that they were hidden.
I do agree that backing out at this point won't help. What I want is an admission from Bush that the initial invasion was a mistake so progress could be made from a position of honesty.
Comment 12 by WF99 on 2008-01-30 at 13:49:28:
I'm really not too well-informed about the death toll in Iraq as a result of the war, so I'm not going to try to argue. And could you please explain more about the nuclear weapons?
Also, I doubt that your suggested course of action is going to happen in the near future.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE