There is not only one way.  That's the point.  We're all working toward the same goals here when it comes to humanitarian efforts.  While nobody has come up with magic solutions--neither the religious nor the secular--we keep trying.

And you might want to stop using that word "godless" when you talk about those who don't believe the way you do.  Unless, of course, you like having people come down on you for insulting them. Your choice.

While I rarely disagree with you Bruce I have to say, those of us who are non-believers generally veer from these discussions because we are always accused of being intolerant of religion, which amounts to accusing us of bigotry, even though we are merely pointing out the inconsistencies of those religious works.  I truly believe that religions is and has been a very destructive force in human relationships. 

Remember when white and black people couldn't legally marry in some states, guess what was used to justify that? Oh right, the bible. But you know that, and yet you insist he is intolerant by pointing out facts. Come on man, that is simply not a logical conclusion to what kat presented.

And I am sorry, but nothing kat wrote is intolerant and it is abhorrent to me that you are suggesting he is intolerant because he believes as I do, that the bible, a book written by men, human men, with the same failings we all have, and has been used to support some of the most unethical, immoral, repugnant acts committed by humans beings against other human beings over centuries. Those are facts that fill our history books. Pointing that out doesn't make us bigots or intolerant.

And it doesn't matter how many religions you've dabbled in, because some folks kind of think that spiritual commitment is something different than getting free tastes of new flavors at Baskin Robbins.

So I've hurt your feelings and you're lashing out. You don't know what I've done on my spiritual path or how serious I may have been from the few sentences I posted. I gave a few examples just to make a point that I was not coming from an atheist mind set or a rejection of the concept of spirituality. I could have written pages. I would bet that I've been as serious as you and likely more serious.

For just one example, one of many that I could write about. For a two year period I worked as the caretaker of the ex-president of the Bethlehem Steel as he was dying. He had 24/7 home care and I worked the weekends, 48 hours straight through. I made enough money I didn't have to work Monday through Friday.

For 7 hours a day 5 days a week I practiced Buddhism. Four hours of hatha yoga and 3 hours of chanting 5 days a week. Hatha yoga is not simply streaching exercises as is practiced by most Americans, asana means seat for meditation and that's how I practiced it. Buddhist or Hindu chanting is not so much different than a Catholic with their rosary or a Jew before the Wailing Wall. I could write pages of just that two year period  and what I experienced and learned. I could also write pages of the full year I spent preparing for a Lakota elder to put me on the hill for a hanblechia. Does that sound like dabbling? Have you ever spent a two year period practicing your religion seven hours a day? So maybe we can dispense with the insults about dabbling and tasting ice cream flavors.

Its likely that you would feel quite comfortable writing a scathing critique of Atlas Shrugged. Because its just a book of fiction written by a person. Yet most adherents would be offended if I wrote a scathing critique of their book. Because for them its not  fiction, its not even nonfiction, its the truth written by god. I don't accept those terms for dialog.

I can't speak to your spiritual path. I know almost nothing about it. But there are these books, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. And there are societies created with these books playing an integral part. And those societies have a long history of actions both described in the books and in other histories after that described in the books. I think I'm free to discuss these books, the societies they created, and the histories of those societies' actions even up to the present day. And often that calls for a scathing critique. I think I could make a convincing case that crimes against humanity ordered by god is not too strong a description.

Now I'm not really sure how that squares with your views on tolerance and respect.

I found this interesting and useful.

Anti-clericalism is a historical movement that opposes the clergy for reasons including their actual or alleged power and influence in all aspects of public and political life and their involvement in the everyday life of the citizen, their privileges, or their enforcement of orthodoxy.^[1]Not all anti-clericals are irreligious or anti-religious, some anti-clericals have been religious and have opposed clergy on the basis of institutional issues and/or disagreements in religious interpretation, such as during the Protestant Reformation

Anti-clericalism in one form or another has existed through most of Christian history. Some philosophers of the Enlightenment, including Voltaire, attacked the Catholic Church, its leadership and priests claiming moral corruption of many of its clergy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism.

It took 100 years for the Enlightenment to take effect?

I'd argue it was more people learning to read the Bible and hearing the freedom imparted by Jesus ' words that moved people to an Anti-slavery position

Seeing the way slaveowners who traveled North treated their captives and being forced to return fugitive slaves had more impact. The Enlightenment was an afterthought. Slaveowners were seen as not behaving in a Godly fashion

I quoted from Liddell and Scott because the authors had no dog in the fight of how the word was being used in the time of the New Testament. The lexicon cites heavily from Thucydides and earlier writers for the word's meaning.

I am not claiming that any source I cite is completely free of bias but in terms of answering Aaron's specific question, there is a very strong consensus amongst scholars of what the word meant in Ancient Greece.

The New Testament was written much later in the language of the "koine", a lingua franca of the time, shared and influenced by Aramaic and Hebrew along with other languages. In the context that the word is used, I don't see any reason to believe the old meaning of the word had been turned upon its head. I would be interested to hear any evidence that it had.

I don't think the meaning of the word makes much of a difference in the present debate about Paul's intentions. What is more germane in my mind is the anticipation of the Second Coming and the promise of another life beyond this one. Paul's calls for non interference with the status quo was always combined with the reminder that a really big change was coming so there was no need to get too worked up about one's earthly station. This viewpoint has been a constant source of tension amongst Christians since it was articulated.