--- Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes. Books, articles and internet forums are good > ways to document what individual unorganized > theists and atheists believe. > Mario responds: > The comments above refer to what the individual unorganized atheists CLAIM to believe. If they make an exception due to convenience, there would be no personal or public consequences unless they break some law. > > Mario wrote: > >The claim above that "moral teachings" in religious > >texts are "now regarded as immoral" is a specious > >allegation, hardly well known, and is probably > >considered a fact only by committed atheists. > > Santosh writes: > > False. Some examples of religious moral teachings > that are now regarded as immoral, and that are well- > known facts are: > > 1. Sati > 2. Casteism > 3. Prohibition of widow remarriage > 4. Killing of homosexuals > 5. Prohibiting women from wearing mens clothing > 6. Stoning of disobedient children > 7. Cutting down and casting in fire those who bear > bad fruit > 8. Forcing disbelievers to drink boiling water, and > burning them > 9. Letting idolaters kill their children > Mario observes: > I see now that Santosh is trying to use some ancient, barbaric, clearly immoral practices, long since abolished, in his specious attempts to indict all religion. None of his references include tenets of the rock solid moral code based on the Golden Rule and The Ten Commandments. > Santosh writes: > > The above wish (that Santosh document what is > immoral about the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments > are immoral) is quite strange since nobody has > stated that I possess such selective documentation. > Mario responds: > What is really "strange" is how Santosh speciously indicts all religions based on a few barbaric practices long since abolished, as when he said on June 3, "It has also been shown that no religion, ideology or atheistic belief system has ever had a rock-solid moral compass." To say that no religion "has ever had" a rock solid moral compass is clearly false. > Santosh writes: > > But since the ten commandments have been selectively > highlighted by Goveia, I wonder if he can explain > the moral value of the first four commandments, and > clarify why death by stoning is an appropriate moral > punishment for violation of some of them as > recommended in the relevant religious texts. > Mario writes: > The moral value of the first three or four commandments (see explanation below) sets the foundation of a religion based on a belief that there is one true God as far as Jews and Christians are concerned, who must be accepted and respected above all else. What is "immoral about that? Death by stoning is not part of the any moral code that is based on the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. > By the way, I must clarify the confusion that I added to with references to the Seven Suggestions and the Six Suggestions, etc. > There are basically three different versions of the Ten Commandments. The Catholic version is as follows, which gives us THREE religious codes and SEVEN moral codes: > 1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain 3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. 4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. > There are other versions that cover the same things but are listed differently. In those versions we have FOUR religious codes and SIX moral codes. For a detailed discussion of these click on: http://biblia.com/jesusbible/deut3.htm#The%20List >
_____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)