In the biblical text are found passages that are extremely ethical, but also other passages that are extremely unethical.

The bible supports an ethical way of life, not because what's actually written in it, but rather for what it symbolises. We don't need a book in order to tell that certain things are ethical and others are not, but the presence of a book can focus our attention and remind us to follow what we already know, doing good and abstaining from evil.

Let me provide a personal example:

In my youth I heard rumours that the Beatles were God.
So I bought their record, "Abbey Road".
Mind you, at the time my English was still very poor, I think I knew the word 'road', but certainly had no idea what 'abbey' meant.

Then I listened with innocence and my very-limited English:

"Come Together"... must be a call for prayer as in "O Come All Ye Faithful".
"Something [in the way she moves]"... must be telling about a divine, enlightened person.
"Octopus's Garden"... must refer to the Garden of Eden (what's an 'octopus' anyway?)
"I Want You"... God, of course!
"Here Comes the Sun"... that must be spiritual indeed, there is hope...
"She Came Into the Bathroom Window"... Saint and Saviour, she must have come to save the people locked inside!
"You Never Give me your Money"... because by your grace I need no material possessions. Indeed, "1,2,3,4,5,6,7, All good children go to heaven".
"Golden Slumbers"... Once there was a way to get back homeward... back home to God, tears fill my eyes.
"Carry that Weight"... what an obvious spiritual theme as in "Lamb of God, thou taketh away the sins of the world".

I also watched the film "Yellow Submarine", hardly understood anything, but what a classic struggle of Good against Evil.

How could I ever guess at that age that THE-BEATLES sang about drugs and crime? All I knew is what I THOUGHT they were singing, which gave me solace and inspiration to be good.

Why not? All you need is Love, Love is all you need!

(cont.)
So it’s not enough to dispense with the theistic middle-man. We have to positively identify a theory of ethics that is factually and logically true - or at least not demonstrably false - to begin with. This doesn't just rule out sky-fairies. It also rules out 'ethics is whatever anyone asserts it is', because this does not rule out 'might is right', which is the opposite of ethics.

I submit that the way we will know when we have positively identified a rational ethic is because anyone must either
a) admit it, in which case there’s no issue, or
b) perform a self-contradiction in denying it. Then we’ll know they’re wrong.

How about that?

Killarney
I agree with your critique of Christianity.

"There is no possible world in which a husband and wife, or man and woman, are equal partners in a caring, giving, supportive relationship."

But how can they be equal in their biomass interest in a child? How can they be equal in their ability to give birth? How can they be equal in their ability to fertilise a member of the opposite sex? How can they be equal in their material interest in the opposite sex? How can they be equal at all?

And why should they?

Equalitarianism is an anti-human ideology that is factually, logically and ethically false.

Why isn't it enough that relations between the sexes should be based on consent?

Why should anyone be threatened with unequal force, to make them obey your belief in the value of equality, that has no basis in fact or logic, let alone ethics?

Killarney...your very sensitive to the subject of domination. But domination is not what the Bible implies when it specifies a patriarchal family unit.
It presents as example (my post), Christ as the head of the church.
It is hard to imagine Christ as hard task-master, when viewed through his living example.
Christianity is the religion of peace and respect; turn the other cheek to your enemies is the extreme.
Living the Christian example entirely, is an impossible task. So there will be those men among other men who of course, will wish to dominate their woman, expecting a form of cowering obedience. That is simply unchristian, and does not follow along with the Christian ethic.

A family is like a business. Someone has to be the boss Killarney, or the business rocks around until it goes broke!

Obviously you chose your men unwisely I would suggest. Very unfortunate for you!

AJ,
As I said, the quote reminded ME of the joke, it could not remind YOU since we have different understandings of religion and ethics.

Dear Jardine,

Sorry to break your post in two. I did not see your post before posting mine.

Argumentation... indeed, how can one argue without axioms?
Axioms cannot be rational - or they would have been theorems.
This doesn't bother me and most serious theologians, but it seems to bother you: I am more than happy to live with non-rational axioms, especially since I believe that there aren't any others.

One common pitfall, for example, is to base an ethical "axiom" on the assumption that mankind must survive. However, the desire for mankind to survive is irrational and it renders the so-called "axiom" as no more than a tactic in the service of the irrational (survival instinct).

«Argumentation presupposes a certain ethical axiom - i.e. you're not trying to use brute force to settle the question in issue, because if you were, argumentation would be redundant.»

So far so good, but the next sentence does not follow:

«Argumentation means recourse to rationality»

False: rationality and brute-force are not the sole two options.

Now I, without any pretence of rationality, obtain my axiom that "brute force is wrong" from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras [2:35] regarding Ahimsa (non-violence): I want to reach God and I have faith in Patanjali that violence is the foremost obstacle on that path.

That's good enough for me, but where do you obtain your axiom(s) from?

Yuyutsu

“Now I, without any pretence of rationality…”

Isn’t this reasoning: “I want to reach God and I have faith in Patanjali that violence is the foremost obstacle on that path.?”

I never said that the only possibilities are rationality and brute force. However I think we can say that the only possibilities are rationality and irrationality. And all history has shown, that irrationality in ethics has often been used as a cover and pretext for brute force and aggression.

I don’t see why an axiom “cannot be rational”.

For example, the axiom that I’m contending for, is that “you cannot argue that you cannot argue”. The reason is, because argumentation pre-supposes that you can be persuaded by reason. Argumentation presupposes that the issue you’re trying to resolve can be resolved by argumentation; otherwise there’d be no point in arguing. Therefore I think an axiom can be rational.

That’s where I get my axiom from.

From this I propose to submit for your, and others’ consideration a rational ethic that does not rely on God-stories, arbitrary postulates, or mere blind faith. The ethic is universally valid *in that* one either agrees with it, in which case there’s no issue, or must perform a self-contradiction to deny it, in which case one proves one’s objection wrong because irrational.

How about that?

Diver dan
Killarney believes that it’s okay to use aggressive violence, including threatening people with prison and rape, to force them to provide women unequally with the benefits of patriarchy, while unequally imposing the costs on men. This bigoted sexist state of female privilege backed by violence and double-talk is what she calls “equality”.

That’s true isn’t it, Killarney?