society without "the Seven Deadly Sins."

[charles brough]

It wouldn't work!

Here is the generally accepted list:wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

Wrath. We need to show anger sometimes to warn selfish people we won't be taken advantage of. It is effective in raising children to convince them you mean what you say when they misbehave.

Geed. Without greed, lust, gluttony and envy the capitalistic system would be unable to work. They take credit for the high physical standard of living in modern times.

If sloth is wrong, what would people do in Heaven? Would they be required to work?

Pride. How can you respect people that have no pride in themselves? Shouldn't we have pride in our religion, our culture, our nation, our children?

[cnorman18]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life. Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan. Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values. Egoism is admired by no one, and so on. If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values. Never a good plan, that.

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin." It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other. The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good. Want to be wealthy? Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things. Want to be famous? Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).

Two principles seem to make sense here: (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can. That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

[Dantalion]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life. Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan. Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values. Egoism is admired by no one, and so on. If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values. Never a good plan, that.

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin." It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other. The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good. Want to be wealthy? Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things. Want to be famous? Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).

Two principles seem to make sense here: (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can. That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

[cnorman18]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life.  Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan.  Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values.  Egoism is admired by no one, and so on.  If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values.  Never a good plan, that. 

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin."  It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other.  The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good.  Want to be wealthy?  Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things.  Want to be famous?  Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).  

Two principles seem to make sense here:  (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can.  That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

That's one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with your holding that opinion -- though it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 
I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

Other things.  Community, heritage, deeper study of those principles, an extended family, commemoration of a shared tradition and history, and more. The Jewish religion is primarily about ethics, but that is neither simple and easy, nor its only concern. 

[Dantalion]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life.  Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan.  Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values.  Egoism is admired by no one, and so on.  If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values.  Never a good plan, that. 

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin."  It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other.  The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good.  Want to be wealthy?  Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things.  Want to be famous?  Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).  

Two principles seem to make sense here:  (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can.  That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

That's one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with your holding that opinion -- though it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 
I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

Other things.  Community, heritage, deeper study of those principles, an extended family, commemoration of a shared tradition and history, and more. The Jewish religion is primarily about ethics, but that is neither simple and easy, nor its only concern. 

The reason many atheists seem to attack the bible and frequently do so on a literal basis is that this book is considered by believers be more thn just a book, it's holy scripture, it's the word of their god.
It's either one of 2 things: we either accept that the bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, and we go from there,
Or, if people want to insist bringing up bible quotes to defend hatred of homesexuality, or to present it as the word of god, using it as a final argument in debate, thn we simply have no choice but to judge the bible primarily not by subjective interpretation which differs from christian to christian, but by literal understanding of written words.
If people can justify the inquisition by simply quoting the bible (it doesn't matter if they misinterpet or not, the mere fact that it CAN be used to defend such heinous acts is enough to discredit the whole document) thn it should be our duty to re-evaluate these written documents.
I attack the bible on a literal basis when I am presented with somebody who uses it to defend or excuse or even demand atrocities.
I know how most jewish people see their scripture, but sadly this is not the only way religious people hold their owhn respective books, so the respect I would give to most jews I can't give to members of the westboro baptist church for instance.
There is a reason jewish tradtions receive far less 'flack' from non-believers thn christians and mulsims do

Sense of community and deeper study of those principles can also be achieved by purely secular means.
Shared tradition and history, I'll give you that one, but seeing as my ancestors were pagans, I don't consider any religion to be of more importance in regards to commemorating tradition thn I would consider praying to the raingod for rain.

[Divine Insight]

Pride. How can you respect people that have no pride in themselves? Shouldn't we have pride in our religion, our culture, our nation, our children?

Well, not only that, but the whole premise of the Christian religion is to "glorify" God.

It's all about God's "Glory".

In fact, they often use the Parent/child analogy when referring to God proclaiming that we should do things that our parent would be "proud" of.

Christianity is all about PRIDE actually. It's all about "Glorifying God".

A jealous God no less.

[cnorman18]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life.  Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan.  Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values.  Egoism is admired by no one, and so on.  If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values.  Never a good plan, that. 

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin."  It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other.  The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good.  Want to be wealthy?  Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things.  Want to be famous?  Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).  

Two principles seem to make sense here:  (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can.  That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

That's one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with your holding that opinion -- though it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 
I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

Other things.  Community, heritage, deeper study of those principles, an extended family, commemoration of a shared tradition and history, and more. The Jewish religion is primarily about ethics, but that is neither simple and easy, nor its only concern. 

The reason many atheists seem to attack the bible and frequently do so on a literal basis is that this book is considered by believers be more thn just a book, it's holy scripture, it's the word of their god.
It's either one of 2 things: we either accept that the bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, and we go from there,
Or, if people want to insist bringing up bible quotes to defend hatred of homesexuality, or to present it as the word of god, using it as a final argument in debate, thn we simply have no choice but to judge the bible primarily not by subjective interpretation which differs from christian to christian, but by literal understanding of written words.
If people can justify the inquisition by simply quoting the bible (it doesn't matter if they misinterpet or not, the mere fact that it CAN be used to defend such heinous acts is enough to discredit the whole document) thn it should be our duty to re-evaluate these written documents.
I attack the bible on a literal basis when I am presented with somebody who uses it to defend or excuse or even demand atrocities.
I know how most jewish people see their scripture, but sadly this is not the only way religious people hold their owhn respective books, so the respect I would give to most jews I can't give to members of the westboro baptist church for instance.
There is a reason jewish tradtions receive far less 'flack' from non-believers thn christians and mulsims do

Sense of community and deeper study of those principles can also be achieved by purely secular means.
Shared tradition and history, I'll give you that one, but seeing as my ancestors were pagans, I don't consider any religion to be of more importance in regards to commemorating tradition thn I would consider praying to the raingod for rain.

I think I'm OK with all of that. As you probably also know, we Jews do not proselytize -- in fact, though we are open to converts (I am one), conversion is actively discouraged in the beginning, and the process only begins when it's clear one knows what one is getting into.

And that is because, in the Jewish religion, what you believe is up to you, and no one is "saved" or "damned" for believing the right "doctrines," a.k.a. "thinking the right thoughts." IF there is a Heaven or anything analogous to it -- we have no formal dogma or teaching on that point, either -- it's open to the righteous of "all nations," which means of any belief or none.

For that very reason, you won't see Jews arguing against other people's BELIEFS very often; we reserve the right to argue against what they DO. If they feed the hungry and shelter the homeless and deal honestly with their neighbors and allathat, it doesn't much matter to us if they believe in Jesus, or Krishna, or Muhammad, or Jackson Browne.

Oh -- and only God gets to decide who is "righteous," and no one gets to speak for God.

[Dantalion]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life.  Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan.  Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values.  Egoism is admired by no one, and so on.  If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values.  Never a good plan, that. 

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin."  It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other.  The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good.  Want to be wealthy?  Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things.  Want to be famous?  Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).  

Two principles seem to make sense here:  (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can.  That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

That's one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with your holding that opinion -- though it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 
I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

Other things.  Community, heritage, deeper study of those principles, an extended family, commemoration of a shared tradition and history, and more. The Jewish religion is primarily about ethics, but that is neither simple and easy, nor its only concern. 

The reason many atheists seem to attack the bible and frequently do so on a literal basis is that this book is considered by believers be more thn just a book, it's holy scripture, it's the word of their god.
It's either one of 2 things: we either accept that the bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, and we go from there,
Or, if people want to insist bringing up bible quotes to defend hatred of homesexuality, or to present it as the word of god, using it as a final argument in debate, thn we simply have no choice but to judge the bible primarily not by subjective interpretation which differs from christian to christian, but by literal understanding of written words.
If people can justify the inquisition by simply quoting the bible (it doesn't matter if they misinterpet or not, the mere fact that it CAN be used to defend such heinous acts is enough to discredit the whole document) thn it should be our duty to re-evaluate these written documents.
I attack the bible on a literal basis when I am presented with somebody who uses it to defend or excuse or even demand atrocities.
I know how most jewish people see their scripture, but sadly this is not the only way religious people hold their owhn respective books, so the respect I would give to most jews I can't give to members of the westboro baptist church for instance.
There is a reason jewish tradtions receive far less 'flack' from non-believers thn christians and mulsims do

Sense of community and deeper study of those principles can also be achieved by purely secular means.
Shared tradition and history, I'll give you that one, but seeing as my ancestors were pagans, I don't consider any religion to be of more importance in regards to commemorating tradition thn I would consider praying to the raingod for rain.

I think I'm OK with all of that. As you probably also know, we Jews do not proselytize -- in fact, though we are open to converts (I am one), conversion is actively discouraged in the beginning, and the process only begins when it's clear one knows what one is getting into.

And that is because, in the Jewish religion, what you believe is up to you, and no one is "saved" or "damned" for believing the right "doctrines," a.k.a. "thinking the right thoughts." IF there is a Heaven or anything analogous to it -- we have no formal dogma or teaching on that point, either -- it's open to the righteous of "all nations," which means of any belief or none.

For that very reason, you won't see Jews arguing against other people's BELIEFS very often; we reserve the right to argue against what they DO. If they feed the hungry and shelter the homeless and deal honestly with their neighbors and allathat, it doesn't much matter to us if they believe in Jesus, or Krishna, or Muhammad, or Jackson Browne.

Oh -- and only God gets to decide who is "righteous," and no one gets to speak for God.

I can only say I have the utmost respect for your position and the way you present it. You sir take the militant out of my atheist.

[cnorman18]

I've never been Catholic, and I'm not sure of this, but I would think the prohibition has more to do with considering any of the seven deadlies to be something that one considers to be the highest value in one's life.  Lust for one's partner is one thing; lust for anything in skirts (or pants) and the desire to bed anyone and everyone one desires, without restriction, is not a good life plan.  Same goes for overwhelming greed, total inertia and avoidance of work, or worshiping food (or "gourmet" food) as ultimate values.  Egoism is admired by no one, and so on.  If one looks at it that way, most of these seven consist, in one way or another, of worshipping oneself and ones' one's own desires to the exclusion of all other people or values.  Never a good plan, that. 

In Jewish teaching, there is no such thing as "original sin."  It is recognized that everyone has both an impulse to do good and an impulse to do evil; but the solution is not so simple as clinging to the one and resisting the other.  The idea is to use the power of the impulse toward evil in order to do the good.  Want to be wealthy?  Get wealthy and use your wealth to do good things.  Want to be famous?  Be famous for being a good person (works well with the other one; be a rich and famous philanthropist) or for doing something wonderful (discover a cure for cancer, e.g.).  

Two principles seem to make sense here:  (1) You are human; you will never be perfect. (2) Be as good as you can be, and use even your faults in the best way you can.  That's not Sacred Doctrine; it's just good sense, from where I sit.

Makes sense, but seeing the commandments are supposed to come directly from God's mouth to Moses's hand, it's fair to judge the commandments the way they appear to us, and not to accept a defending of them based on personal opinion.

That's one way of looking at it, and I have no problem with your holding that opinion -- though it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 
I agree with you principles.
Thing is, you don't need religion for that.
If those 2 principles would be a kind of an ultimate summary in regards to morality, thn, to pararphrase Stephen Fry adressing the Church, what are you FOR ?

Other things.  Community, heritage, deeper study of those principles, an extended family, commemoration of a shared tradition and history, and more. The Jewish religion is primarily about ethics, but that is neither simple and easy, nor its only concern. 

The reason many atheists seem to attack the bible and frequently do so on a literal basis is that this book is considered by believers be more thn just a book, it's holy scripture, it's the word of their god.
It's either one of 2 things: we either accept that the bible is a flawed book written by flawed men, and we go from there,
Or, if people want to insist bringing up bible quotes to defend hatred of homesexuality, or to present it as the word of god, using it as a final argument in debate, thn we simply have no choice but to judge the bible primarily not by subjective interpretation which differs from christian to christian, but by literal understanding of written words.
If people can justify the inquisition by simply quoting the bible (it doesn't matter if they misinterpet or not, the mere fact that it CAN be used to defend such heinous acts is enough to discredit the whole document) thn it should be our duty to re-evaluate these written documents.
I attack the bible on a literal basis when I am presented with somebody who uses it to defend or excuse or even demand atrocities.
I know how most jewish people see their scripture, but sadly this is not the only way religious people hold their owhn respective books, so the respect I would give to most jews I can't give to members of the westboro baptist church for instance.
There is a reason jewish tradtions receive far less 'flack' from non-believers thn christians and mulsims do

Sense of community and deeper study of those principles can also be achieved by purely secular means.
Shared tradition and history, I'll give you that one, but seeing as my ancestors were pagans, I don't consider any religion to be of more importance in regards to commemorating tradition thn I would consider praying to the raingod for rain.

I think I'm OK with all of that. As you probably also know, we Jews do not proselytize -- in fact, though we are open to converts (I am one), conversion is actively discouraged in the beginning, and the process only begins when it's clear one knows what one is getting into.

And that is because, in the Jewish religion, what you believe is up to you, and no one is "saved" or "damned" for believing the right "doctrines," a.k.a. "thinking the right thoughts." IF there is a Heaven or anything analogous to it -- we have no formal dogma or teaching on that point, either -- it's open to the righteous of "all nations," which means of any belief or none.

For that very reason, you won't see Jews arguing against other people's BELIEFS very often; we reserve the right to argue against what they DO. If they feed the hungry and shelter the homeless and deal honestly with their neighbors and allathat, it doesn't much matter to us if they believe in Jesus, or Krishna, or Muhammad, or Jackson Browne.

Oh -- and only God gets to decide who is "righteous," and no one gets to speak for God.

I can only say I have the utmost respect for your position and the way you present it. You sir take the militant out of my atheist.

Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. I learned all this from Jewish tradition and teaching. See, that's another thing that it's for...!

[charles brough]

CNORMAN wrote:

it has always puzzled me that so many non-religious folk seem to insist, as fervently as any tongue-talking fundamentalist, that the Bible must be read as the inerrant and direct Word of God or not at all. Many religious people, like myself and most Jews, regard it as the literature of the Jewish people, and not as the Book of Eternal and Unchangeable Rules.

 Yes, the bulk of Christians are "liberal Christians" in that they do not believer everything in the Bible and believe the most unbelievable parts, where most important, must be taken on faith. It is because of this majority-type of Christians (Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc) that our secular system can be agreed on and even spread to the Non-Western world. Because of them, you, we have been able to turn Muslims into liberal Muslims, believers in Judaism into liberal Jews (from Othodox) all because of our secular ideology.

Its the Fundamentalists that most non-theists target because they are the ones that believe in what defies natural cause and effect and are, hence, anti-scientific. That is important because without science, we lose technology and technology is the only thing that keeps us from being over-populated !

Hows that for being objective? That's the only way to make sense of society and civilization.