verty said:
...religions usually set up an enemy...and punishing the enemy is really good.
Even modern Christianity has this element with homosexuals and abortion.
Religion forces one to take sides on the issue of meaning, and leads one to force that choice on others.
Verty, there are a few problems here. Christians are not moved to set up an enemy when they commit their lives to follow Jesus Christ. They become convicted that God has revealed himself to us in the Bible. They confess that they are sinful and need forgiveness from God. They sincerely repent and humbly accept the forgiveness offered through Jesus' death on their behalf, and ask that God will help them by his spirit to live as they ought. This involves saying no to the old ways (selfishness), and living to serve God and all people.
It has nothing to do with setting up enemies. You seem to be confusing this with the fact that the God of the Bible declares certain things to be objectively good and other things objectively bad. Relativists (I am yet to meet a consistent one) have a problem with the idea of objective truth, and hence also of an objective standard. Ironically, the Relativist breaks his/her own rules by making universal claims, such as that there is no objective truth. And even the most staunch Atheist appeals to the commonly accepted notion of 'ought', which Atheism rejects. When it comes down to it, nobody can live consistently with the idea that there are no objective standards.
It is not extraordinary that, given any standard, there will be some on one side of it, and some on the other side. Christians do not set up an enemy in those who fail to live up to the Bible's standards -- after all, to be a Christian is to recognise that no-one has lived up to that standard completely. Nor does the the Christian set up an enemy in those who openly reject Biblical teaching (e.g. advocates of Pro-choice). The Christian's ethical position on abortion is no more "adversarial" or "arrogant" than the view that opposes it; each view makes just as strong a claim to an objective standard as the other. For the claim that
Abortion is permissible in certain situations prompts the response
Is it? On what basis?. Neither position can be proved or disproved. Curiously, the Pro-choice position acknowledges the Biblical idea of the sanctity of human life, but rests precariously on the assumption that foetuses aren't yet human. The practice of partial birth abortions is arguably farscical. Arguments for or against Abortion (as a "right"), can have nothing to do with the unfortunate circumstance of a woman being raped, or the couple who are careless enough to not use protection when they are seeking to avoid pregnancy -- these are not reasons for a "right" to terminate a pregnancy. For the appeal to a "right" is a claim about things that are much bigger than those issues.
On the issue of abortion, or any other ethical issue at all, it is interesting to consider what follows logically from all dogma being of human origin. What is the essence of "Good"? Is it whatever is most commonly accepted? most helpful to society? most necessary for the the survival of humanity? And what are the reasons for adopting it? (It is argued that human instinct is the common denominator and the reason to think our lives are worthwhile. But which instinct? The instinct to help someone who is vulnerable in the path of moving traffic, or the instinct to stay off the road for self preservation? There are many instincts, many of which would contradict each other at different times. What is the grounds to appeal to one instinct over any other? In its rationale, Utilitarianism boils down to arbitrary nonsense. It is also a recipe for the misuse of power: in practice, Utilitarianism has always led to brutal oppression at the hands of a ruthless dictatorship.)
Verty, as for religion forcing people to take sides on the issue of meaning -- what on Earth is that about? Are you simply referring to what happens when you take a human, add an elementary worldview, allow the human various sense experiences, wait for interpretation and inference to occur, and see if this gives birth to a thought? This is what we all do, and quite naturally too, I assure you!
And what of "[forcing] that choice on others"? Take, for example, the Christian view that God created everything, and brought humans into being for relationship with him. Am I forcing you to take sides on the issue of the meaning of our existence? I don't feel like I'm forcing you to do anything! Asking that question is what thinking people have always done. Maybe what you mean is that some "religious" people have tried to impress their views upon you with undue force. And perhaps that is the case. What is
not the case, however, is that Christianity strips people of their liberty. On the contrary, Christianity is the very root of modern freedom in the Western world, and provides the best case I know for arguing the value of personal choice. In any social group, there are people who are an embarrassment to their cause. What stands out about Christianity over the centuries is the number of positive examples of committed Christians, and the impact they have had for the good of people all over the world. Christians have always pioneered for just causes at the cost of personal hardship and, often, their lives.
It does not do your argument any service to make blatantly false, over-generalised, unthinking remarks. I am happy for you to respond to anything I've said if you are interested in sensible discussion.
