How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[Astrid]

You might want to consult a dictionary.

Its not there. Maybe somewhere the the
deep outfield of synonyms.
Honestly, Chinese have to give English
lessons to Americans.
Why not just admit you meant
exactly what the word means






Aother unresponsive post, circular filed.
We're done.

In the real world, there is more ambiguity about peoples religious beliefs. Connecting the average believer with violent fanaticism or extremism isn't fair or accurate. It's appealing to a very extreme interpretation of religious experience as normative.

It's all connected- depenping
on the sect anyway.. Just differences of degree.
And agreeing that extremists are, well, extreme
and not the norm.
Some countries tho are heavily and
dangerously populated with extremists
to where I'd not remotely go, or be safe there.

 

[Astrid]

Nature and morality are two different things. I'm talking about preferences and tendencies. How those are judged by society is another thing altogether.

Certain genetically determined
behaviours in animals correspond
with human behaviors that we are
pleased to refer to as "moral".

This is so obvious and well know
that it takes the most rigid sort of
religious ideology to even bother
attempting to deny it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know that it's been quantified, but studies show that when identical twins have been separated at birth, for example, and then their lives compared decades later, their lives are strikingly similar in ways that were surprising. We're not just a blank slate. Certain leanings, preferences, talents, etc are built in. Some people have perfect pitch, which is genetic; others are tone deaf. The tone deaf ones are not likely to become musicians.


For what? I didn't say anything about excusing criminal behavior.

I'm not sure why you inferred that.

Oh. Well, if that's all you're implying, then I guess I can agree with your general statement. We all have genetic influences in our makeup that do affect us, but I think we need to be careful of using language that is definitely 'fated' or determined.

 

[FireDragon76]

C'mon...there are many people who would base laws on what they believe God wants. I honestly don't care what people believe. Except when their beliefs impact me and mine in some way. At which point I want some reasons for their positions.

Is that an unreasonable position?

I think you are mischaracterising how political discourse typically works in the English-speaking world. You seem to be suggesting that religious people can't articulate actual reasons for their attitudes and values, and that's simply not the case. Only the most unintelligent would suggest "God commanded it" is a good enough basis for public policy. If simple divine command were able to solve every public policy debate, why does the papacy bother wasting so much ink on encyclicals? Why do other church bodies do the same?

 

[FireDragon76]

It's 'the vast majority' is the problem. It admits to there being small minority. And if someone holds to a position that is contrary to mine, I want to know their reasons for holding to it. 'Because God is always right' is not acceptable. I want to know why He's right in that particular case.

Outside the backwoods of Appalachia among the snakehandlers, perhaps, but outside there is no public religious discourse like this in the actual world. So perhaps this is just tilting at strawmen?

 

[Astrid]

I think you are mischaracterising how political discourse typically works in the English-speaking world. You seem to be suggesting that religious people can't articulate actual reasons for their attitudes and values, and that's simply not the case. Only the most unintelligent would suggest "God commanded it" is a good enough basis for public policy. If simple divine command were able to solve every public policy debate, why does the papacy bother wasting so much ink on encyclicals? Why do other church bodies do the same?

There's reasons and there's
reasons.
They range among plausible,
feasible, and specious.
Reasons based on someone's opinion about
what some god wants are that last.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's 'the vast majority' is the problem. It admits to there being small minority. And if someone holds to a position that is contrary to mine, I want to know their reasons for holding to it. 'Because God is always right' is not acceptable. I want to know why He's right in that particular case.

Do not conflate Islam with Christianity when speaking all too generally about your demand that the "religious" account for their point of view, first of all.

 

[Ken-1122]

Outside the backwoods of Appalachia among the snakehandlers, perhaps, but outside there is no public religious discourse like this in the actual world. So perhaps this is just tilting at strawmen?

Actually there IS discourse like this in the actual world. Perhaps not where you live, but where I live I go to a park, a religious person will hand me a religious track, invites me to attend one of their services, and a conversation ensues. When he finds out I am not a religious person, I think they are more interested in why I don't believe, and I am more interested in why they do believe. They are always respectful, I'm naturally respectful so the conversation always remains on the positive tip so though nobody ever changes their minds, we both go away with a better understanding of each other. But my point is; to suggest these kinda conversations don't happen in the real world except in hillbilly land; is not true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I assume you meant moral in the future. Changing morality is certainly the case with Biblically-revealed morality too. As Christian interpretation hopefully matures, they no longer burn witches and promote slavery and outlaw interracial marriage. Interestingly, secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along. But still, Christian morality changes over time.

And..............................your sources? I absolutely hate it when people show up to spout their bona-fide opinion and then fail to give even the most tokesque support (or evidence) for their point of view.

For instance, my point of view is made up of a conglomeration of 100's of sources, and I can simply reach over into my stockpile and throw one out there for others to trip over, such as those by someone like Orlando Patterson, or James Cone, Blaise Pascal, or Alvin J. Schmidt, or William Wilberforce, or Glenn S. Sunshine.

Where's YOURS?????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[NxNW]

And..............................you're sources?

Sources for what? Historical fact?

I absolutely hate it when people show up to spout their bona-fide opinion and then fail to give even the most tokesque support (or evidence) for their point of view.

Who said anything about a point of view? Are you actually disputing any of the historical facts I mentioned? Do you need me to document that George Washington was the first President, too?

For instance, my point of view is made up of a conglomeration of 100's of sources, and I can simply reach over into my stockpile and throw one out there for others to trip over, such as those by someone like Orlando Patterson, or James Cone, Pascal, or Alvin J. Schmidt or Glenn S. Sunshine.

Where's YOURS?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Are you sure your shift key isn't stuck?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sources for what? Historical fact?


Who said anything about a point of view? Are you actually disputing any of the historical facts I mentioned? Do you need me to document that George Washington was the first President, too?

Are you sure your shift key isn't stuck?

Yes, Mr. North By Northwest. My shift key is DEFINITELY stuck. And it will stay stuck!

 

[Ken-1122]

And..............................your sources? I absolutely hate it when people show up to spout their bona-fide opinion and then fail to give even the most tokesque support (or evidence) for their point of view.

For instance, my point of view is made up of a conglomeration of 100's of sources, and I can simply reach over into my stockpile and throw one out there for others to trip over, such as those by someone like Orlando Patterson, or James Cone, Blaise Pascal, or Alvin J. Schmidt, or William Wilberforce, or Glenn S. Sunshine.

Where's YOURS?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Are you seriously gonna deny Christian morality has not changed over time? All you gotta do is look at history! It was Christians who burned to death women accused of witchcraft remember? Christianity was used to justify slavery in the USA remember? All the stuff NxNW mentioned was promoted by Christians of that day, but would be condemned by Christians of today; do you agree?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Are you seriously gonna deny Christian morality has not changed over time? All you gotta do is look at history! It was Christians who burned to death women accused of witchcraft remember? Christianity was used to justify slavery in the USA remember? All the stuff NxNW mentioned was promoted by Christians of that day, but would be condemned by Christians of today; do you agree?

I do look at history. That is my turf. And by the gross generalizations that you and NxNW are asserting, however much minimal relevance some substrata of the claims you're making may have, you show your lack of willingeness to consider other perspectives on the very totemesque evaluations that you and he offer here.

Do I agree? No, I may partially agree and I may partially disagree because I think these issues are more historically complex than you and he seem to let on. You both are offering what are essentially conceptualied effigies of the actual historical ideologies, philosophies, and or disfunctional praxis of some people who have lived in different times, who have "claimed" to be Christian, and who have had some essentially bad hermeneutical and exegetical understandings of the Bible, Christian Ethics, and variously contrived institutions.

So, don't give me your crap and try to drive me into false dilemmas that are born out of your less than satisfactory understanding of World History.

If you refuse to engage me and my sources, and you fail to also provide your own sources for counterpoint, then I take that as an academic admission of ignorance and lack of academic ability on your part. Which then means that your opinions, such as they are, are insufficient, but you just don't know it yet.

But here. I'll get you started as to the way in which my overall retort and response to your mediocre assertions will be summoned and applied. I'll start at the minimal level of that of Philip J. Sampson in his book, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization (2001). Add this to the names I've already mentioned.

If you guys can't engage my sources, THAT's your problem, not mine.

And where are your sources?????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Bradskii]

Do not conflate Islam with Christianity when speaking all too generally about your demand that the "religious" account for their point of view, first of all.

I'm an equally opportunity kinda atheist. When I talk about 'religion' I mean all religions.

 

[FireDragon76]

Actually there IS discourse like this in the actual world. Perhaps not where you live, but where I live I go to a park, a religious person will hand me a religious track, invites me to attend one of their services, and a conversation ensues.

They are trying to be friendly, if you don't want to go, you don't have to. And that's not political discourse or discussion of public policy. When church bodies discuss politics, almost always they attempt to explain their reasons other than "God said it".

When he finds out I am not a religious person, I think they are more interested in why I don't believe, and I am more interested in why they do believe. They are always respectful, I'm naturally respectful so the conversation always remains on the positive tip so though nobody ever changes their minds, we both go away with a better understanding of each other. But my point is; to suggest these kinda conversations don't happen in the real world except in hillbilly land; is not true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm an equally opportunity kinda atheist. When I talk about 'religion' I mean all religions.

That's great to know, but just realize too then I'm a "discern the difference between a Muslim and a Christian" kind of academically minded Existentialist.

So, on a Christian Forum, and as a kind of Christian myself, I am in absolutely NO WAY going to take any of the moral consequences of what Muslims may "do" in the name of their own religious perspective. I won't accept any association of their ideologies whatsoever!!!!

As in: absolutely NONE of it.

I'd like to think that you'd want me to offer the same consideration that I offer to you. Whether you agree or don't, I make my own thoughtful effort to clearly differente between someone like yourself and those who are more stained with murderous appeal, like Lenin or Stalin, who have "atheism" in common with you but nothing more than that.

Am I wrong to think this?

 

[Ken-1122]

I do look at history. That is my turf. And by the gross generalizations that you and NxNW are asserting, however much minimal relevance some substrata of the claims you're making may have, you show your lack of willingeness to consider other perspectives on the very totemesque evaluations that you and he offer here.

Do I agree? No, I may partially agree and I may partially disagree because I think these issues are more historically complex than you and he seem to let on. You both are offering what are essentially conceptualied effigies of the actual historical ideologies, philosophies, and or disfunctional praxis of some people who have lived in different times, who have "claimed" to be Christian, and who have had some essentially bad hermeneutical and exegetical understandings of the Bible, Christian Ethics, and variously contrived institutions.

It doesn’t matter if you don’t consider those people “real” Christians or not, (I’m sure they would say Christians of today aren’t real Christians) or if you feel they had a bad understanding of the Bible or not, (I’m sure they would have said people like you have a bad understanding of the Bible)people who considered themselves Christian of that day had a different morality than the people who consider themselves Christians today.

So, don't give me your crap and try to drive me into false dilemmas that are born out of your less than satisfactory understanding of World History.

Humm….. I notice you did not answer my question, so let me ask it again; are you denying people who considered themselves Christian of that day did those things?

If you refuse to engage me and my sources, and you fail to also provide your own sources for counterpoint, then I take that as an academic admission of ignorance and lack of academic ability on your part.

By all means; present your sources that prove what Christians consider right vs wrong today is not different than what Christians considered right vs wrong years ago.

Which then means that your opinions, such as they are, are insufficient, but you just don't know it yet.

But here. I'll get you started as to the way in which my overall retort and response to your mediocre assertions will be summoned and applied. I'll start at the minimal level of that of Philip J. Sampson in his book, 6 Modern Myths About Christianity & Western Civilization (2001). Add this to the names I've already mentioned.

If you guys can't engage my sources, THAT's your problem, not mine.

You are recommending I read a BOOK? Are you kidding me??? Tell you what; you read the book, and if I said anything you disagree with, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

And where are your sources?????????????????????????????????????????

Here is a link from an actual Christian source (so you can’t accuse it of unfair bias) that confirms what I said

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery? - Christianity Today

Key reasons advanced by southern church leaders

www.christianitytoday.com

 

[Ken-1122]

They are trying to be friendly, if you don't want to go, you don't have to. And that's not political discourse or discussion of public policy. When church bodies discuss politics, almost always they attempt to explain their reasons other than "God said it".

This conversation is not about public policy, or political discourse, it’s about people who disagree on the basis that God said it, and that settles it. This is what is seen as unacceptable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn’t matter if you don’t consider those people “real” Christians or not, (I’m sure they would say Christians of today aren’t real Christians) or if you feel they had a bad understanding of the Bible or not, (I’m sure they would have said people like you have a bad understanding of the Bible)people who considered themselves Christian of that day had a different morality than the people who consider themselves Christians today.

Humm….. I notice you did not answer my question, so let me ask it again; are you denying people who considered themselves Christian of that day did those things?

By all means; present your sources that prove what Christians consider right vs wrong today is not different than what Christians considered right vs wrong years ago.


You are recommending I read a BOOK? Are you kidding me??? Tell you what; you read the book, and if I said anything you disagree with, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

Here is a link from an actual Christian source (so you can’t accuse it of unfair bias) that confirms what I said

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery? - Christianity Today

Key reasons advanced by southern church leaders

www.christianitytoday.com

So, your answer is: sure enough, these guys haven't been to college.

My main contention that YOU got into the middle of was with NxNW's statement, specifically the following statement:

"Interestingly, secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along."​

​

But, I get it: you want me to ignore my own gripes about how we should all be attempting to assess historical social issues on a wider scale, but you ONLY want to address your specifice gripes that you feel are pertinent, whether or not they're actuall comprehensive in nature.

OK.

So, in this case, I'll answer you and say that in generic terms that ignore other notable historic factors, we can say that that have been people who have claimed to be Christian in U.S. History and who thought that slavery of African people's was justified "per the Book." This generic sub-fact doesn't indicate that what has always been at the core of Christian morality as posited in the 1st century has actually changed its essence; but human interpretation and all of the gestalt process that through social accident comes about and is applies as praxis to that 1st century moral theology can change, has changed, sometimes through several permutations to the present day.

But, even IF I articulate my own statement about slavery in this overly generic way doesn't mean that by some default NxNW's statement above is true by default. 'Cuz, it AIN'T!

It isn't a truism to say that "secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along." At best, it's a half-truth that is mediated by 19 centuries of Christian thought amid various social and political forces. Let's get that straight!

Here's something else that some of you atheists might want to pin to your sleeves for consideration:

Aristotle and the Argument for American Slavery

Aristotle and the Argument for American Slavery By Olivia Haynie Throughout history, philosophers and authors from ancient Greece and Rome have inspired later civilizations and generations. Their i…

web.sas.upenn.edu

Oh, I have more.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, your answer is: sure enough, these guys haven't been to college.

No; that was not my answer

My main contention that YOU got into the middle of was with NxNW's statement, specifically the following statement:

"Interestingly, secularists seem to get there first and have to drag Christianity along."​

No; the main point that I was arguing was that even Christianity has changed over time