How do Christians possibly rationalize these things?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 12:09 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
I do not have to sterotype Christianity, it sterotypes itself in what it does in its own name.


This is exactly the problem. No matter how many times I explain the errors of this sort of thinking your only response is a restatement of your presumptions.

People stereotype, boagie.

Quote:
Thomas, does ill organized still to you mean mental illness, again, take the time to understand what you read


Again, we can claim the other doesn't understand all day long and never get anywhere.

To answer the question - no, never did. I did not bring up mental illness, you did. I didn't bring up organization, either, you did. Remember? You asked:

Quote:
Mentally ill organized even on an individual level, is this your argument for not holding Christianity accountable for what is done in the name of Christianity, we are all so confused we can't be held responsiable?


And I responded: "No. I do not hold people responsible for things they do not do."

Quote:
you sound like you are declaring war Thomas-------let the games begin!!:p


War? No, that's against my religion.

As for 'games', I can only imagine you mean some sort of discourse regarding our disagreements on religion. While this sounds magnificent, I must admit I am surprised - you are generally too timid to do more than state your already manufactured views. But, hey, I'm all for a real discussion.
 
Martin Cothran
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 12:15 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
Yes I wonder how rape, genocide, extermination, religious killing, witch-burning, slavery, human sacrifice, murder, and animal sacrifice is possibly wrong.


Right. That's my question. We know why Christians would call them wrong (and hence why they could be charged with being hypocritical), but on what basis does the OPer do so?
 
Martin Cothran
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 12:40 pm
@Martin Cothran,
So to my question to Mephistopholes as to what basis he was judging certain things to be wrong, and Christians for both affirming them (by acknowledging the truth of Scripture) and condemning them, we are given this response:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...l-purpose.html
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...not-wrong.html

So we check out these two links and find that one of them says, "Life will still be life, and then you'll die, and nothing will matter. Nothing matters. Not even our own lives. Why would we matter if we simply and utterly die? The mind is such a fragile thing, and when it ends, it can never come back."

I guess I'm wondering how nihilistic statements like this answer the question of what basis Mephistopholes is using to criticize Christianity. How does nihilism provide the foundation for the criticism of any belief, let alone Christianity? If nothing matters, then how can you have any moral basis for saying that something else is immoral, or wrong? What precisely is wrong, from a nihilistic perspective, with affirming moral beliefs and believing a document in which they are committed, apparently with approval?

Then we check out the 2nd link, where we find statements like this one, "There is no universal physical law saying murder is wrong. There are laws basically etched into stone declaring murder illegal, but what makes murder wrong? By virtue of being "illegal"? That's not a rational answer. What makes murder intrinsically, fundamentally wrong?"

Okay. So if you can't say murder is wrong, then on what basis are you saying hypocrisy is wrong?

Looks to me like you're hung by your own rope.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:06 pm
@Martin Cothran,
Martin Cothran wrote:
Right. That's my question. We know why Christians would call them wrong (and hence why they could be charged with being hypocritical), but on what basis does the OPer do so?


Well, I don't think the original post was implying he does. It was simply suggesting the hypocrisy of Christianity, regardless of what philosophy he uses in his own morality.

Martin, I don't think he's hung by his own rope; he's simply considering. His feeling toward hypocrisy or murder as being intrinsically wrong is irrelevant. It's not wrong to consider, even if the one considering may appear hypocritical based on their set of morals, in my opinion. Hell, I consider things all the time and sometimes don't have a 'good' or reasonable basis - I consider just to consider.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:13 pm
@Martin Cothran,
"War? No, that's against my religion."

Thomas,

I think most people get the joke!:p Do me a favour, limit your dialogue with me to one area/thread. I am less than charmed by your approach but perhaps we can get it out of the way, as in done.Wink




When you find yourself falling, dive!! Joseph Campbell
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:21 pm
@boagie,
Ah, boagie and Didy,

The whole premise of this philosophy forum is to discuss, share ideas, spread information. Don't limit yourselves by letting your emotion overshadow what could very well be a good discussion! You both articulate your points well, and although you have differing viewpoints, don't hold it against each other! Learn from each other and advance.

...for God's sake (yes, I said God Very Happy)
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:26 pm
@boagie,
Boagie, where ever I see you, or anyone else, making indefensible comments about religion, especially when those comments retard intelligent discussion, I will respond. Nothing personal, I just prefer to correct misguided statements that promote intolerance.

You are free to discourse as you please.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:57 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Boagie, where ever I see you, or anyone else, making indefensible comments about religion, especially when those comments retard intelligent discussion, I will respond. Nothing personal, I just prefer to correct misguided statements that promote intolerance.

You are free to discourse as you please.


Thomas,Smile

I would guess we are still in trouble, if your so sensitive about intolerance you might clean house first. Your kind of evasive in getting the individual and the church off the hook. My concern is what Christianity does on the political front. I mean, who would give a dam if an individual wished to believe in a purple tooth fairy, certainly not I, but, would I like see him in a position of power, this causes unbelievers some stress.




When you find yourself falling, dive!! Joseph Campbell
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 02:43 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
I would guess we are still in trouble, if your so sensitive about intolerance you might clean house first.


Yeah, I would prefer tolerance to intolerance. I don't see a problem there.

Quote:
Your kind of evasive in getting the individual and the church off the hook.


Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, and not the actions of others. Similarly with some particular organization.

So, we could blame Hitler and various other Nazi officials for the Holocaust, but not every German alive in 1940. To take an example from religion,we can also blame that political animal the Catholic Church for countless ills, like the Crusades, but not every Catholic as not every Catholic is responsible for the Crusades.

Individuals and organizations should be held accountable, if they are responsible.

Quote:
My concern is what Christianity does on the political front. I mean, who would give a dam if an individual wished to believe in a purple tooth fairy, certainly not I, but, would I like see him in a position of power, this causes unbelievers some stress.


I am also concerned about the mixture of politics and religion - especially when we have religious nut jobs involved in politics, like our current President Bush.

Luckily, not every spiritual individual holds beliefs comparable to belief in a purple tooth fairy. There are cases where religious doctrine has positively influenced politics - The Indian emperor Ashoka implemented a number of environmental protections in accordance with his Buddhist ideals. Unfortunately, most mixtures of religion and politics do not turn out so well. That's why I'm a big Jefferson fan - I'd like a wall of separation between my church and state, please.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 02:46 pm
@boagie,
How do some of the posters rationalize these things:
shameless ignorance
Holding beliefes in light of their inherent fallacies

To say christians allow for such evils is so fallacious that I am not sure where to start, and I see thomas d to be a drowning voice of reason in this.

To say that any group so broad as christians can be held accountable is fallacious due to that fact that it presumes a nonexistent homogeny. To misunderstand ancient laws as given truth is fallacious and most christians do not advocate such a belief, only an outspoken and ingorant minority.

To accuse christianity itself of any evils is absurd, it is those who wish to further themselfs who use christianity as a tool for their own ends who are to be held accountable, not those who find value in a set of ideals contained in an ancient text.
I do not attack communists and other collectivists for supression of peoples or the millions of death caused by bastardisations of their movement. I do not do this because I recognize the good intent inherent in the movement and those who have in the past believed in it. I do not attack those who belong to a group that is guilty of evils for if I did so I would not only be a hypocrite but a mysanthrope.

I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 03:12 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
How do some of the posters rationalize these things:
shameless ignorance
Holding beliefes in light of their inherent fallacies

To say christians allow for such evils is so fallacious that I am not sure where to start, and I see thomas d to be a drowning voice of reason in this.

To say that any group so broad as christians can be held accountable is fallacious due to that fact that it presumes a nonexistent homogeny. To misunderstand ancient laws as given truth is fallacious and most christians do not advocate such a belief, only an outspoken and ingorant minority.

To accuse christianity itself of any evils is absurd, it is those who wish to further themselfs who use christianity as a tool for their own ends who are to be held accountable, not those who find value in a set of ideals contained in an ancient text.
I do not attack communists and other collectivists for supression of peoples or the millions of death caused by bastardisations of their movement. I do not do this because I recognize the good intent inherent in the movement and those who have in the past believed in it. I do not attack those who belong to a group that is guilty of evils for if I did so I would not only be a hypocrite but a mysanthrope.

I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.


You have a solid point, and we shouldn't presumptuously accuse all Christians of advocating such things.

Thanks for your post.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 03:45 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic,

"I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.[/quote]

:)What then, is attacking science today, a wisp of smoke perhaps, this same wisp of ether tries to usurp the public education system with some MORONIC rerun of creationism, this same wisp of non-accountable smoke put a president in the whitehouse. Know you only make an enemy more intense by denying any responsibilly while you trash him. I care less than nothing for Zeus!!

Ludicrous-----simplistic-------moronic, your building up to be rude:p I can tell!!:rolleyes:
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:17 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Zetetic,

"I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.


:)What then, is attacking science today, a wisp of smoke perhaps, this same wisp of ether tries to usurp the public education system with some MORONIC rerun of creationism, this same wisp of non-accountable smoke put a president in the whitehouse. Know you only make an enemy more intense by denying any responsibilly while you trash him. I care less than nothing for Zeus!!

Ludicrous-----simplistic-------moronic, your building up to be rude:p I can tell!!:rolleyes:[/quote]

Presumption 1: That the wisp of smoke is a homogenous one and that all of its constituents act towards the same ends and of the same reason

Presumption 2:That said wisp only chose said political figure to acheive a single end and that it is tied into attacking science
subpresumption: This is a majority or near majority of peoples who must be held accountable
-Inquiry:By who?
If this said wisp is a homogenous majority, it is not subject to accountability, it defines accountability. The negatives of majority rule are well understood and poorly controlled.:eek:

You assume that you are correct, they assume that they are correct, you claim you know better, so do they, you both forget that you are part of the same balancing act that has continued for thousands of years between the minority of change and majority of stagnace whihc has ocme to define progress. In attacking the majority for stagnance you condemn man of his nature in his laziness you are attcking your own generalised nonspecific argument with little attempt at a solution:D.

As for your assessment of my assessment, these are fairly sweeping generalisations and I think that they merit the title of simplicty. Perhapse you are right, moronic is a false assesment in light of the constituent parts of the argument, I think that perhapse I was rude in the slaphazard lazyness of my assesment, I think the term devistatingly lazy is much more accurate;).
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:34 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic,Smile

Christians are the majority in the United States, and when they call for Christians to unite and vote in blocks, are they still as hard for you to find, can't find the trees for the forest. Just what is it you think the intellectual community is reacting to, they have been accused of attacking Christianity, somehow they found it, however Christianity attacked first in its assault on science and reason in general. You are a sharp and rude chap, which means, your a sharp and rude chap. If you are going to call yourself something, best check it out for what it is up to, to insist you are something, to support it, then deny responsibility, is apparently, simply Christian,
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:46 pm
@boagie,
"to insist you are something, to support it, then deny responsibility, is simply Christian."-Boagie

It is simply human. I know many intellectual chrisitans who are very supportive of the scences. I have met several christians who fear the sciences out of ignorance. I have met non christians who still have superstitious belief about the sciences and the dangers inherent in them. It is human to fear what we do not understand, and most people do not understand the sciences, this is a very terrible problem, one that I am directly affected by as a future scientist.
The christians percieved science as an attack because they did not understand it and had not had to look at the bible in an accomodating way but rather only listened to their parents or pastors who have of course led them astray unwittingly. Belief is not rational, and most people are slaves to belief.

As far as rudeness is concerned, I find that it is the quickest way to get a reply and most can handle it, if it is false they will show me why, if it is true then there they sit bare-assed.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 04:58 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
"to insist you are something, to support it, then deny responsibility, is simply Christian."-Boagie

It is simply human. I know many intellectual chrisitans who are very supportive of the scences. I have met several christians who fear the sciences out of ignorance. I have met non christians who still have superstitious belief about the sciences and the dangers inherent in them. It is human to fear what we do not understand, and most people do not understand the sciences, this is a very terrible problem, one that I am directly affected by as a future scientist.
The christians percieved science as an attack because they did not understand it and had not had to look at the bible in an accomodating way but rather only listened to their parents or pastors who have of course led them astray unwittingly. Belief is not rational, and most people are slaves to belief.

As far as rudeness is concerned, I find that it is the quickest way to get a reply and most can handle it, if it is false they will show me why, if it is true then there they sit bare-assed.


Zetetic,Smile

How is one to deal with the actions of an institution then, that is no real entity? Such a non-entity would be invincible and able to do whatever it liked, quite the beast!
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:07 pm
@boagie,
You assume it is a problem to be solved by simple measures, and that it is even solvable or proper to solve it. The opposing side cannot stop science, they depend on it too much and science always finds a way. It is not as though science is being qushed or stamped out,only slowed down, which is actually good in some ways. The people must get used to unkown waters and it takes quite a while for it to happen. I think you might look to solving the problem of impatience, it is the quickest way that you might satisfy yourself. That being said, the best way is through persistent education and attack through individual issues. Find a chink in the armour of the beast and you can topple it with small effective attacks.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:13 pm
@boagie,
Quote:
What then, is attacking science today, a wisp of smoke perhaps, this same wisp of ether tries to usurp the public education system with some MORONIC rerun of creationism, this same wisp of non-accountable smoke put a president in the whitehouse. Know you only make an enemy more intense by denying any responsibilly while you trash him. I care less than nothing for Zeus!!


There is no denial of responsibility. Fundamentalist Christians are trying their best to replace science with their religious views.

The mistake you continue to make is blaming all Christians for the actions of some Christians.

Quote:
How is one to deal with the actions of an institution then, that is no real entity? Such a non-entity would be invincible and able to do whatever it liked, quite the beast!


There is no trouble picking out particular institutions, and even particular individuals, as being responsible.

The mistake is assuming that all Christians are part of some unified group. This is simply not the case.

While some try to deface science, others in this group (Christians) work daily as scientists. We obviously cannot blame all Christians for the assults on science when some of those Christians are the one's working in scientific fields.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:30 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Zetetic,Smile

How is one to deal with the actions of an institution then, that is no real entity? Such a non-entity would be invincible and able to do whatever it liked, quite the beast!


Are you forgetting that this isn't the only institution that has no real entity? Many entities appear invincible, however, since they don't have much power or influence we don't care as much.

I see where you're coming from but the problem seems a lot harder to fix than it appears. We can't blame all Christians, and even knowing which Christians to blame seems a bit hazy. Instead of attacking the problem in this manner, why not try something else.

Take the Broken Window theory, for example. It suggests that to fix a larger problem, say the downfall of a neighborhood into poverty and crime, one must focus on the little things first, such as the broken windows. The more people that see the little effort that is made, the better the reputation of said area - with time, the small things will actually wind up fixing the larger problem. So, what are the little things that may fix this problem? Well, for starters, we could stop this senseless bickering and acknowledge a common denominator (hopefully being to better humanity). Secondly, we could plant seeds, that is, give knowledge to Christians and everyone for that matter regarding the problem. Don't force this knowledge, but just present. Every fundamental Christian that chooses to consider is a fixed window. But it doesn't stop there. Ya see, every person that regards a Christian as necessarily the sole cause of this problem, is only contributing to the problem. So, the enlightenment of said people is also another broken window that must be fixed.

If our goal is really to benefit humanity, we can't just keep pointing fingers. This discrimination, anger, saving of face, is just not helping. Furthermore, we need to come to some common conclusions and attack this problem from a different angle that places all humans, regardless of their beliefs, on the same plane.
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 05:32 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas,Smile

So who or what is one to address, I do not wish to blame any individuals, however if a deed is done in the name of Christianity, how is it wrong to address that entity as Christianity, when it is calling itself Christianity? What's the alternative boys? First broken window to be fixed.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 01:12:06