What's so bad about hating Christianity? I hate Christianity along with every other religion. So what? Are you gonna call me evil Gawain? See if I care.
Just sayin hi... :bow: ~;)
Printable View
What's so bad about hating Christianity? I hate Christianity along with every other religion. So what? Are you gonna call me evil Gawain? See if I care.
Just sayin hi... :bow: ~;)
Nope just liberal ~DQuote:
What's so bad about hating Christianity? I hate Christianity along with every other religion. So what? Are you gonna call me evil Gawain? See if I care.
Just sayin hi...
Let me be the first to say its good to see you back. ~:cheers:
well.. one should certainly examine why they would "know [something] to be right". otherwise, why should you pass the judgement implicit in the statement, "Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things"? how do you decide what is awful? that ethic is coming from somewhere.. and barring people that grew-up outside of society, that ethic is going to be at least somewhat (if not heavily) influenced by the ethical frameworks surrounding the person as they mature. for almost anyone, that's going to involve the influence of some religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
you dont? what about the various religious orders of the catholic church? tons of communal life, charity work and redistribution of wealth there
socialism does not mean secular
im sure that most christians do not wish to have the war of capitalism vs socialism spill over into their realm entirely when they are at war with relativism and religious doubt
as much as many capitalists do not wish to have a religious debate when fighting socialism
you can say that many non-religious people are drawn to secularism just as many religious people are drawn to capitalist concepts - but i maintain that this is less because of ideological similarities and has more to do with traditional alliances - mainstream being defended by mainstream and alternative by alternative
I believe that I am as qualified as any to seek the truth, and that I can be as right or wrong about things as much as any religion can be. Some questions can be very difficult, perhaps too difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I don't know you, but my guess is that you have a moral framework that tells you whether a certain thing is good or bad. Like me, you may not get it right each time.Quote:
then what about me? do i know, inside, what is right and wrong?
I actually find abortion to be abhorrent, but believe it is not the responsibility of the State to dictate whether a woman must carry a child to term (unless it is so late in the pregnancy that the fetus would be able to survive independently)Quote:
i believe that abortion is wrong
this is a core belief of mine
you may believe that it is right
You mistake my contention that moral values exist independent of the Christian religion with a purely subjective morality. Murder for one's own convenience is always wrong, because it violates the rights of the murdered and would lead to a collapse of society.Quote:
if "deep down" we both know what is right - and we disagree - chances are that one of us is wrong. and deep down right and wrong wouldnt be worth too much. if one person says murder for ones own convenience is ok and another says it is the worst possible thing to do - how can both be right or wrong?
We can't. As a society we must define some common ground, which can be done independent of any religious values. The principles of fairness and equality can help us find this, as it has in the US.Quote:
how can we have a government that protects both what is right and wrong based on everyone's individual beliefs?
Human sacrifice without the consent of those being sacrificed is clearly a violation of the concepts of fairness and equality. Each individual is entitled to some basic rights, one of which is not be killed for another's convenience or to appease someone else's god.Quote:
wouldnt there be serious conflicts of interests there? some people believe that human sacrifice is ok - those being sacrificed probably do not.
Since I, for one, do not wish to be sacrificed to any god, then not only do I have the right, but the obligation to protect those being sacrificed. We do that by banding together as free and independent people, sacrificing our ability to murder others in order to protect ourselves from being murdered.Quote:
who are we then to tell the sacrificer that, even though, deep down, they believe that human sacrifice is right, we have the right to stop them?
looking past the sarcasm I'll try to do the right thing and respond as best I can. First, I do not think that I have all of the answers. I believe that a religion can be just as misguided and wrong in it's beliefs as any person or government, and that by continuing to strive to do what is right, and learning from my (and others) mistakes and successes, I can continue to improve and better life my life doing what is right.Quote:
im just looking to someone who believes so firmly that they know the way to give me some guidance here, ichi - if you would be so kind
The difference between this philosophy and the theological imperative is that I make decisions for myself, in the context of my society, rather than doing what someone tells me is God's will. The person telling me what God's will is has no more of an insight than I do.
Kepp working at it mate, it'll come to you ~:)Quote:
because i am sort of lost
ichi :bow:
Burning people at the stake for failing to recant their religious views is by almost any view, awful. The thing speak for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
Because I know that being burned at the stake is horrible, and that I wouldn't want to be burned at the stake, I can say that it is wrong to do such a thing to others because of their religious beliefs.Quote:
how do you decide what is awful?
I concur, and I've said elsewhere many times that I try to live a Jesus asked us, love each of my brothers, turn he other cheek, etc. The influence of religion is evident throughout our society.Quote:
that ethic is coming from somewhere.. and barring people that grew-up outside of society, that ethic is going to be at least somewhat (if not heavily) influenced by the ethical frameworks surrounding the person as they mature. for almost anyone, that's going to involve the influence of some religion.
That said, I'll continue to believe that the light shines as brightly on me as does on you, or some self-proclaimed holy man. Society can enforce behavior based on standards of fairness and equality and the common good.
ichi :bow:
no, it doesn't. nothing like that can speak for itself. you must imbue it with awfulness. and here's why you do that:Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
"do unto others..." is a reasonable stance, though i'm not sure that such an ethic is itself devoid of religious influence. why is that ethic valid (or more valid than another, like "kill them before they kill you!")? simply because it, presumably, leads to the most stable form of society?Quote:
Because I know that being burned at the stake is horrible, and that I wouldn't want to be burned at the stake
this needs a bit of clarification, at least for me. are you speaking of some sort of internal sense, a genetic morality?Quote:
[you] believe that the light shines as brightly on [you] as does on [me], or some self-proclaimed holy man.
i agree that these three concepts can be evaluated without reference to religious doctrine, and could be used to create a society.Quote:
Society can enforce behavior based on standards of fairness and equality and the common good.
im a liberal, my family is liberal, and my church for the most part is liberal, but we certainly dont hate christianity as we are christian.
When anyone claims that liberals arnt christian i just want to...
:disguise: :rifle:
Maybe he was a Pagan ...... ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Semantics. Seeing something as being awful is, of course, based on the viewers subjective perceptions. We are humans, and the awfulness of bing burned to death is readily obvious to any reasonable person. Hence, ipso locutor.Quote:
no, it doesn't. nothing like that can speak for itself. you must imbue it with awfulness.
The idea of treating others as you would be treated is more than a way to achieve a stable society, it is a guideline to fairness, which is a moral value.Quote:
why is that ethic valid (or more valid than another, like "kill them before they kill you!")? simply because it, presumably, leads to the most stable form of society?
Again, I'm not proposing moral relativism or the idea that each of us is free to act on our own individual vlaues. I'm simply putting forth the idea that there are moral frameworks and value systems that are not based on divine revelation or religious decrees.
It is possible to be moral, just, and good without being a Christian. It is possible to claim to be Christian and do evil. I'm arguing against the belief that
ichi :bow:Quote:
everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good.
ok, thanks for clearing up your stance for me.
Maybe I should throw in that one of the worst things that happened to Christianity was the Catholic Church. I don´t call the Catholic Church christian because it simply isn´t.
Jesus never sid one should crusade, he never said one should burn infidels, instead he said one should love his enemies. And tell me where the bible said that there should be any pope who represents God and is elected by men after more than one poll. If God would know who shall be pope, why would they need more than one poll? Can´t the Catholic god decide or what? Now where did the bible say one should pray to holy people who are dead? Doesn´t it say we should let the dead rest?
The bible also says one shall not make pictures of God, but yet the Catholic Church painted old men with beards everywhere. :dizzy2:
Don´t take them as an example for Christianity please, I could probably come up with more things like that, but I think that´s enough for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
I like this position, I just dont believe it. This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that humans have any inherent morality. You seem to.
The morality that you seem to be referring to is a fairly advanced version of egoism that was not present in me when i was a child. I cannot prove my stance, but simply give evidence, based on the fact that many children seem to have no "morality" other than getting what is best for themselves. Occasionally, there is a change in behaviour, but i am not sure whether that comes from a the example of a model (parent, etc) or whether deep down they are "good".
Do you believe, also, that "basic human morality" was the basis for religion in the first place? That Religion was man-made and made "basic human morality" overly complicated?
Probable, but I cannot confirm this and most religious people do not believe this. It denies the metaphysical element that makes Religion more than philosophy, thus giving it moral legitimacy in the first place.
one doesn´t have time to dice this up into little groups...i hate everybody!!!. ~D
loool...now seriously....i´d say i hate organized religion.........personal religious convictions i can´t say that i hate them, i´d argue as to their lack of point but i don´t hate them ~;)
This is more an aside, but here goes:
Say at the end of your days there is nothing. Nothing but death. No reward for being moral, virtuous, good... no judgement for hurting others, for demeaning others, for stealing from others etc... You're just dead. Noone will remember you in a few generations, nor nothing you did (good or bad), and your bones will eventually be reabsorbed into the earth.
It's as if you never existed.
What was the point? Further, what was the point of being "moral"? Virtue as it's own reward? What reward? That you felt good about yourself while alive? Why? Wouldn't you also have felt good spending all those ill-gotten gains...if only you didn't feel sooo guilty?
Religion is necessary IMHO. Pick one, they all seem to have the same goal.
The catholic church is secular now? ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I dont know any rightwing securlarists/socialists but I guess there are some.
you dont? what about the various religious orders of the catholic church? tons of communal life, charity work and redistribution of wealth there
Look the guy is speaking in generalities. How many catholic secularists are there? The church itself is certainly a socialist orginization. Its the combination of the thwo, socialist, secularist that causes the trouble. The facts are that you are far more likely to be these two if you are liberal. Socialist religious have the same problem as they still believe that god and not man has the final word. This is the thrust of the article. Its about the eternal battle of believers vs non believers.
i may be wrong, but i actually don't think he is claiming that you need to believe in an inherent morality. he seems to be arguing that a human mind can conceptualize a moral framework without an appeal to the metaphysical. specifically, fairness can be used as the basis for a moral code of a society. fairness itself can essentially be computed; it's a nearly quantitative property (though in a society of more than a few individuals, such a computation would very quickly become much too complicated and require abstraction).Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
now the legitimacy of using that morality over any other is a separate question. nothing in the description, that i can see, indicates that this morality has an innate justification. but no justification is as good for me as a justification relying on the metaphysical. and societies rarely need to justify their rules anyway, afaik.
There's a big problem with fairness as a universal standard, as it is an incredibly relative term that means different things to different people.
Is equal opportunity for success fairness, or equal success itself?
Is it fair for me to defend myself in my own home, or is it fair rule that everyone must not harm anyone?
You catch my drift? We always think we ourselves are being 'fair', and it's always the other guy that's being 'unfair'. It's entirely subjective and there's nothing universal about that standard at all.
@ Big John and Tuff , thanks for the good discussion. This topic has the potential to bring teh lock and teh ban
ichi :bow:
That article is just lame. And if that guy got a job in a serious newspaper with a title such as "Liberals hate christianity" which is so broad, absurd and not funded on anything but specific comments of a few, and extended it to nearly half of the US population then he is even dumber than his article.
Seriously, the guy who wrote that article was not impartial or even fair. I mean, left in his hands he would stake and burn every liberal in sight. On the other hand he isnt considering but christians in his speculations. What about jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc that populate the american landscape? Are they supposed to go to mass on weekends too?
Don CorleoneWell, it is fair for you do do anything you please if you are ready to accept the consequences. You cant shoot someone and expect to go unpunished.Quote:
Is it fair for me to defend myself in my own home, or is it fair rule that everyone must not harm anyone?
he's talking about self-defense, should violence in the defense of one's own life be punished? the don brings up good points, and i'd like to see ichi respond to them (since the fairness proposition came from him in this thread). as the relationships between individuals in a society grow in complexity, 'fairness' becomes difficult to conceptualize, much less maintain. does it become untenable?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
ichi.. i can see teh lock, but who would get teh ban from this topic??
I know he was talking about self defense.
My point is, violence should never be absolutely ruled out. A society that turns its back to violence becomes a group of scared lambs ready to be destroyed by the first passer-by.
After that it is a question of priorities, you can recur to violence if you feel that the punishment for using it is worth taking (say a prison sentence over getting killed) or not. As simple as it gets.
oh ok, i never would have gotten that from post #50.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
i don't quite understand this. in the text i bolded, are you saying that a person should weigh a prison sentence versus being killed by an attacker?Quote:
After that it is a question of priorities, you can recur to violence if you feel that the punishment for using it is worth taking (say a prison sentence over getting killed) or not. As simple as it gets.
yup. If the kills the attacker he would be prosecuted with or without sentence, right? or at least he would be in any civilised country, anyway if he values his life higher than a prosecution he should shoot the attacker, if he doesnt, then he shouldnt. Im not taking away his right of shooting or not shooting though.
That's not very Christian of you...Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
~;)
Sorry, I have to disagree with you here, Swords. Shocker. You're saying that we have a moral obligation to allow an attacker to do whatever they will to us and when we attempt to defend ourselves, we deserve prison time?Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster
Progressives (not liberals in the purest sense of the word) always hate things based in tradition and history. Whats more, they hate things that must be taken on faith - as faith cant be measured or tested. So whats the biggest institution based on tradition and faith in America and Western Europe? - the Christian church in all its variations of course.
They are just people who cannot be allowed to hold any power in our country, its that simple. We shouldn't try to make them understand why they should exercise their own strong belief in tolerance towards Christians and traditionalists - we should just make sure they never have any influence.
Oh and the only reason they sympathize with Islam is because there is a strong anti-american sentiment in much of that world, and progressives hate America almost as much as Christianity and other organized religion.
Now your in trouble Panzer. You better learn to duck. :hide:
wow PJ , what would you say if someone posted here that Christians are so misguided they should never be allowed any say in our government?Quote:
They are just people who cannot be allowed to hold any power in our country, its that simple.
The strength of our country is based on the free expression of diverse ideas, including those calling for the exclusion of those who think differently.
So you'll forgive me if I think you're a little off-base here.
and that I worry that the polarization of our country will soon tear us apart.
ichi :bow:
While I agree with you that PJ's comments were a little out of line, people do post here, all the time, claiming that Christians are so misguided they shouldn't be allowed in government. I think we all need to calm down. Must be the summer heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi