Growing Discrimination Against Christians

[ClydeR]

I have already observed in American culture a sizable shift toward what the author of the following quoted article predicts for the future of America.


Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

More... (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html)

As you know, that is a sign of the end times.

[ElvenFury]

As you know, that is a sign of the end times.
About fucking time.

http://kabonfootprint.com/busby-seo-test/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/end-is-near.jpg

[radamanthys]

Good.



http://www.crackedpixels.net/files/images/fsm.jpg

[CrystalTears]

It's about time that the most hateful religion starts to have some of that hatred thrown back at them.It's not a hateful religion. Hate the players who go apeshit with the message they gain, not the game.

[phantasm]

The thing is, christians in this country and throughout the world do more selfless acts of good than any other religion out there.



It's about time that the most hateful religion starts to have some of that hatred thrown back at them. Maybe if some of your rights were taken away you'd start to love thy neighbor instead of hate thy neighbor because they don't live their life the way you want them to.


This is a selfish view, you want something, purely for selfish reasons, and because you can't have it, this is enough reason for you to be filled with hate. You need to reevaluate yourself.

[Fallen]

This is a selfish view, you want something, purely for selfish reasons, and because you can't have it, this is enough reason for you to be filled with hate. You need to reevaluate yourself.

I think more importantly he needs to reevalute himself for responding seriously to a ClYder post.

I've also heard that hate crimes around the world against Jews are on the rise. I wonder if religion as a whole is being seen as the impetus for much of the violence today.

[BriarFox]

Evangelical Christianity != Mainstream Christianity. Just our version of radical Islam.

[radamanthys]

A problem with western religion is that it tries to put the illogical into logical terms. This, as has been shown over the years, drives people nuts. The idea of the Koan in eastern religions allows the mind to process that which it feasibly cannot- or more prepare it for the idea. There is no such analogue in western tradition. Hence the batshit crazy christians (and others).

The method of the teachings has a fundamental flaw, nothing said about the teachings themselves. Some New testament stuff can be extrapolated into the secular as to be pretty awesome, really.

Unfortunately, modern christians (the ones who hold the limelight, at least- there certainly exists the 'silent majority' within) tend to 'pick and choose' which of the ideals set forth in the old testament they still want to crucify people for.

Certain Hypocristians unite under a banner of intolerance- not necessarily hate. The 'at war' aspect started when it became acceptable not to believe. This country was founded on religious tolerance. People have a (god-given [sic]) right not to believe. And to be free from an institutionalized form of any certain dogma. Many christians are quite vocal about finding this unacceptable. Since they, in a grandiose fashion, don't tolerate non-christians speaking out against christianity, the christian side shows only intolerance. They feel that in speaking out against the religion, others are 'hostile' or 'at war'. In some cases, it is true. People are lashing out against proselytism, excessive and forceful witnessing tactics, politicians attempting to enact legislation in the name of some god, etc.

I would argue against the point, phantasm, that christians do more good than any other religion. You have to take the harm they cause into account as well. There is a significant number of other theologies out there. Can you say that Christians do more good than Baha'i? How about Sikhs? Zen Buddhist monks? That statement is, in it's own right, quite naive. There is no way to quantify it.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

A problem with western religion is that it tries to put the illogical into logical terms. This, as has been shown over the years, drives people nuts. The idea of the Koan in eastern religions allows the mind to process that which it feasibly cannot- or more prepare it for the idea. There is no such analogue in western tradition. Hence the batshit crazy christians (and others).

The method of the teachings has a fundamental flaw, nothing said about the teachings themselves. Some New testament stuff can be extrapolated into the secular as to be pretty awesome, really.

Unfortunately, modern christians (the ones who hold the limelight, at least- there certainly exists the 'silent majority' within) tend to 'pick and choose' which of the ideals set forth in the old testament they still want to crucify people for.

Certain Hypocristians unite under a banner of intolerance- not necessarily hate. The 'at war' aspect started when it became acceptable not to believe. This country was founded on religious tolerance. People have a (god-given) right not to believe. And to be free from an institutionalized form of any certain dogma. Many christians are quite vocal about finding this unacceptable. Since they, in a grandiose fashion, don't tolerate non-christians speaking out against christianity, the non-christian side shows only intolerance. They feel that in speaking out against the religion, others are 'hostile'. In some cases, it is. People are lashing out.

I would argue against the point, phantasm, that christians do more good than any other religion. You have to take the harm they cause into account as well. There is a significant number of other theologies out there. Can you say that Christians do more good than Baha'i? How about Sikhs? Zen Buddhist monks? That statement is, in it's own right, quite naive. There is no way to quantify it.

Well put.

And may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage for many years to come.

[radamanthys]

Well put.

And may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage for many years to come.

<3

[Clove]

Unfortunately, modern christians (the ones who hold the limelight, at least- there certainly exists the 'silent majority' within) tend to 'pick and choose' which of the ideals set forth in the old testament they still want to crucify people for.
There is no way to quantify it.
Physician heal thyself. Christian sects are generally tolerant, intolerant Christians are about as common as Muslim terrorists, or for that matter Judaic terrorists. Fundamentalists are a fundamental flaw in religion as a class but regardless it's undeniable that even though we are a religiously tolerant society it has become fashionable to bash Christians and I find it entirely contrary to the principles the United States stands for. Excusing the practice because "some Christians are assholes" is unacceptable.

[Keller]

The thing is, christians in this country and throughout the world do more selfless acts of good than any other religion out there.

While there is no way that an be objectively proven or disproven, I'm not sure I agree.

I'm a member of my own religion, Don't Be an Asshole. I think my good deeds are much more selfless than any Christian's deeds because I have no secondary objective (ie salvation/being-Christ-like/etc) that prompts me to act or refrain from acting. I just do it or don't do it because I feel it is either right or wrong to do.

I think personal salvation is a selfish goal, in it's truest form.

[Clove]

I'm a member of my own religion, Don't Be an Asshole.It's pretty sad when you can't even adhere to the tenants of your own religion...

[Keller]

It's pretty sad when you can't even adhere to the tenants of your own religion...

Why was that in italics?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think personal salvation is a selfish goal, in it's truest form.

I've struggled with this aspect of many religions.

[Clove]

I've struggled with this aspect of many religions.Really? And why exactly is it immoral to have self-interest?

[Keller]

Really? And why exactly is it immoral to have self-interest?

I assume you inferred that her "struggling" with whether salvation was selfish or not amounted to considering being selfish immoral?

[BriarFox]

I assume you inferred that her "struggling" with whether salvation was selfish or not amounted to considering being selfish immoral?

That. The problem with salvation being selfish is that Christianity bills its good deeds as altruism.

[Clove]

That. The problem with salvation being selfish is that Christianity bills its good deeds as altruism.No, it attributes its good deeds as evidence of a believers' faith. Immanuel Kant (a moral philosopher) already observed in Metaphysics of Morals that human beings are incapable of purely selfless acts, moral behavior, therefore is not an expression of selflessness but an expression of freedom. Gee Keller, does that sound familiar?

[Fallen]

No, it attributes its good deeds as evidence of a believers' faith. Immanuel Kant (a moral philosopher) already observed in Metaphysics of Morals that human beings are incapable of purely selfless acts, moral behavior, therefore is not an expression of selflessness but an expression of freedom. Gee Keller, does that sound familiar?

I haven't gotten that far in the reading, but Nietzschie wasn't a huge fan of Kant.

"A word now against Kant as a moralist. A virtue must be our invention; it must spring out of our personal need and defense. In every other case it is a source of danger. That which does not belong to our life menaces it; a virtue which has its roots in mere respect for the concept of "virtue," as Kant would have it, is pernicious. "Virtue" "duty" "good for its own sake" goodness grounded upon impersonality or a notion of univeral validity-- these are all chimeras, and in them one finds only an expression of the decay, the last collapse of life."

It goes on but I dont want to retype it all. He makes a good argument, Nietzschie.

[ElanthianSiren]

I've also heard that hate crimes around the world against Jews are on the rise. I wonder if religion as a whole is being seen as the impetus for much of the violence today.

This. I'm longing for the day where organized religion won't exist, but I'm pretty sure it's a long time coming, as it fulfills several basic needs for quite a few people.

That said, IMO it's one of those things where a few bad apples spoil the entire bag. The bigger problem is the human drive for power. Eliminate that and religion is mainly beneficial albeit nonexistant.

[Fallen]

This. I'm longing for the day where organized religion won't exist, but I'm pretty sure it's a long time coming, as it fulfills several basic needs for quite a few people.

That said, IMO it's one of those things where a few bad apples spoil the entire bag. The bigger problem is the human drive for power. Eliminate that and religion is mainly beneficial albeit nonexistant.

Eh, is organized religion really going away? As people lose faith in mainstream Christianity other religions grow in popularity; often far more wacko than the former, which has been tempered by thousands of years of existence.

[ElanthianSiren]

Eh, is organized religion really going away? As people lose faith in mainstream Christianity other religions grow in popularity; often far more wacko than the former, which has been tempered by thousands of years of existence.

No, that's why I said it's a long time coming. If you look at the hierarchy of needs, most religions do their damndest to fulfill many of them.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Really? And why exactly is it immoral to have self-interest?

No where did I say it was immoral.

[BriarFox]

No, it attributes its good deeds as evidence of a believers' faith. Immanuel Kant (a moral philosopher) already observed in Metaphysics of Morals that human beings are incapable of purely selfless acts, moral behavior, therefore is not an expression of selflessness but an expression of freedom. Gee Keller, does that sound familiar?

"Good deeds are evidence of faith," ergo we're back to Keller's point that the desire for salvation (here "faith") produces good deeds out of self-interest. We can go with Kant and say there's no such thing as altruism, which would excuse both Christianity's self-interestedness as well as the self-interestedness of people who do good deeds because it makes them feel good, but it doesn't change the fact that despite the philosophical justification, Christians still popularly bill their good deeds, produced through a selfish desire for salvation, as a sign that they're "good people." Give them Kant to read, not us. Personally, I find a desire to help other people in order to receive the same in return or to improve society at large a better goal than personal salvation. But then, I'm a secular humanist.

[radamanthys]

Physician heal thyself. Christian sects are generally tolerant, intolerant Christians are about as common as Muslim terrorists, or for that matter Judaic terrorists. Fundamentalists are a fundamental flaw in religion as a class but regardless it's undeniable that even though we are a religiously tolerant society it has become fashionable to bash Christians and I find it entirely contrary to the principles the United States stands for. Excusing the practice because "some Christians are assholes" is unacceptable.


As I said, the ones in the limelight. Unfortunately, that's the christian advertisement and marketing department these days.

The politicians. All of them. <---This is a major one, since they are doing the most to force the ideals upon us.
The special interest groups. They work in the guise of "Family life" or "abstinence education" or so-such. These extol and push primarily christian values upon the masses.
The preachers. A number of them.
The screaming Street preachers. Most of them.
The TV christians.
Anyone who tells a loved one that they are going to hell. It may be your belief, but extolling it is intolerant of theirs.
Etc
etc
e t c.

It's not as goody-goody as you'd make it out to be. Ya gotta look at it from the other side. Pretend, for one minute, that every christian with any power, voice, or authority was Muslim. Many who are areligious or of a separate religion in this country would feel similar to that.

[Warriorbird]

Given as the End Times are near there is only one thing we can do... find Kirk Cameron or we will be Left Behind.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Left_Behind_DVD_cover.jpg

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a9/BITCHRAP.jpg/300px-BITCHRAP.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/a/a9/BITCHRAP.jpg/300px-BITCHRAP.jpg


All I could think of when I saw this was, "WHERE IS YOUR CEILING CAT NOW?"







I'm sick.

[Clove]

Anyone who tells a loved one that they are going to hell. It may be your belief, but extolling it is intolerant of theirs.No. Having a belief that conflicts with another is not intolerant. People need to grow a pair.


It's not as goody-goody as you'd make it out to be. Ya gotta look at it from the other side. Pretend, for one minute, that every christian with any power, voice, or authority was Muslim. Many who are areligious or of a separate religion in this country would feel similar to that.See advice above. I don't give a flying fuck what religion anyone in power is- nobody has required me to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Sikh, or anything at all. Frankly I'm tired of the argument "but people will FEEL bad..." to those people I say "fuck you, and grow up." We have nurtured a culture where it's popular to criticize, particularly anything that's mainstream and that's fine to a point, but frankly it isn't hip to bash ANYONE's religion-it's disgusting.

[Clove]

I haven't gotten that far in the reading, but Nietzschie wasn't a huge fan of Kant.I'm not a huge fan of Nietzschie and I would expect Nietzschie would be critical of anything that criticized or contradicted Existentialism. I'm not sure that that proves anything other than when different philosophers adhere to conflicting premises or axioms that they... don't agree with each other. :clap:

It goes on but I dont want to retype it all. He makes a good argument, Nietzschie.Not really.

[Clove]

Christians still popularly bill their good deeds, produced through a selfish desire for salvation, as a sign that they're "good people." Give them Kant to read, not us. Personally, I find a desire to help other people in order to receive the same in return or to improve society at large a better goal than personal salvation. But then, I'm a secular humanist.No because Christians believe in original sin which essentially invalidates the claim that anyone is a good person. Good deeds is merely an example that they are practicing their faith.

As a secular humanist, why don't you focus on telling people what secular humanism is and stop pretending to know what people who practice a faith you don't, believe.

[Clove]

No where did I say it was immoral.It was implied when you said you struggled against it. Why would you have a problem with it otherwise?

[Fallen]

I'm not a huge fan of Nietzschie and I would expect Nietzschie would be critical of anything that criticized or contradicted Existentialism. I'm not sure that that proves anything other than when different philosophers adhere to conflicting premises or axioms that they... don't agree with each other.

Exactly. He says he is rather full of shit, though in admittedly more flowery terms. His point was that Kant's views on virtue, and in a larger sense the idea of theological virtue as a whole is rather flawed. Sory you didn't catch the relevance. But hey, everyone's a critic.

[Clove]

Exactly. He says he is rather full of shit, though in admittedly more flowery terms. His point was that Kant's views on virtue, and in a larger sense the idea of theological virtue as a whole is rather flawed. Sory you didn't catch the relevance. But hey, everyone's a critic.His point was philosophically akin to "no you!"

[thefarmer]

My in-laws got us the first Left Behind movie for christmas a few years back.

It's still sitting in the shrinkwrap in the back of our closet.

[Warriorbird]

It is one of the single most unintentionally comic movies I've ever seen, up there with 'Killa Season.' and 'On Deadly Ground.'

[BriarFox]

No because Christians believe in original sin which essentially invalidates the claim that anyone is a good person. Good deeds is merely an example that they are practicing their faith.

As a secular humanist, why don't you focus on telling people what secular humanism is and stop pretending to know what people who practice a faith you don't, believe.

You are entirely missing the point. To spell it out, your average Christian does not espouse what you're espousing.

As for secular humanism:

1) My statement above is a brief example of it.
2) Why would I want to be a preacher? Evangelical much?
3) I was confirmed Lutheran, after two years of classes.
4) I study medieval literature, which has a huge religious component.
5) You can understand a religion without adhering to it.

I thought your comment about Kant was smart - now you're just being a moronic jackass.

[Clove]

You are entirely missing the point. To spell it out, your average Christian does not espouse what you're espousing.Speculation, and unlikely since I'm relaying the common and traditional teachings.


5) You can understand a religion without adhering to it.Unrealized potential in your case.

[Swami71]

It is one of the single most unintentionally comic movies I've ever seen, up there with 'Killa Season.' and 'On Deadly Ground.'

What about garbage day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k)?

[Danical]

We have nurtured a culture where it's popular to criticize, particularly anything that's mainstream and that's fine to a point, but frankly it isn't hip to bash ANYONE's religion-it's disgusting.

Why can't non-believers tell the believers to grow the fuck up and grow a pair? Also, there's a host of research demonstrating how religiosity galvanizes in-group / out-group formation, fostering intolerance toward outsiders. It's quite ironic for a proselytizing religion.


No because Christians believe in original sin which essentially invalidates the claim that anyone is a good person. Good deeds is merely an example that they are practicing their faith.


Didn't this guy die for our sins thereby removing original sin (Atonement) and producing a blank slate? I read that once.


No, it attributes its good deeds as evidence of a believers' faith. Immanuel Kant (a moral philosopher) already observed in Metaphysics of Morals that human beings are incapable of purely selfless acts, moral behavior, therefore is not an expression of selflessness but an expression of freedom. Gee Keller, does that sound familiar?

I'm not sure why you keep beating the Kantian drum. Motive is simply not a boolean statement; we don't have to take altruism off the table. Additionally, Kantian Freedom doesn't offer you much when coupled with Duty and his necessity for God. Kant thinks in ridiculous universals most of the time and his arguments don't hold up very well, especially against contemporary ethical philosophers. While arguments for Psychological Egoism are silly, Divine Command Theory is scary shit.

[TheWitch]

Being raised Lutheran, currently a converted non-observant Catholic...

Clove, you have at least one rather large assumption going that isn't entirely accurate.

Moderate Protestants (ie the Lutheran church, ALC midwest that I was brought up in) may believe in original sin, but they do not harp on it and use it as an excuse to make you feel like a piece of shit like the Catholic religion does.

All Christians are not the same, and to use original sin, of all things, as some sort of binding glue between the different variations Christianity has taken on since oh, Martin friggin Luther, is disingenious.

Now, if you Clove, are a Catholic then I understand this. Another thing I've found very off-putting about the Catholic church, more so than the Lutheran church I was raised in, is its total and complete belief that they, and only they, get it.

And I also understand that's not necessarily the point of your posts.

I do agree with you one point, that if both believers and non-believers alike could just accept that their way is not the only way, that people with different belief systems can peacefully coexist.... Well, many wars would be averted.

Which is why I am a Christian, but I refuse to throw my hat into any specific church's ring at this point. When I do, I find myself drawn to the Methodists church in town because theirs is a welcoming parish, with sermons of joy and beauty, not hellfire and brimstone browbeating like I hear at the Catholic church.

Ironically, my children attend Catholic school. That is however more of a statement about the piss poor, lowest common denominator public education system than anything else.

One other thing: the ideas of being a "good" person, expectations of respectful behavior towards other people, a desire to rise above the lowest common demoninator, those IMO are not so much religious tenants as they are the expectations we should all have for ourselves and each other. Blaming that on Christianity isn't particularily accurate, it's called being civilized. The past few decades have seen a serious decrease in the expectations of civility, and excuses are being made for uncivil people "well, that's just their way, they don't know any better." Lets write them a big fat government check!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It was implied when you said you struggled against it. Why would you have a problem with it otherwise?

It wasn't implied, you simply decided that was what I meant.

Just because there are aspects to something that make me uncomfortable, doesn't mean I find it immoral or anything of the sort. But frankly, I don't want to get into an argument with you about it, given you've clearly already made up your mind. Arguing with a wall isn't something that interests me. :shrug:

[Clove]

Why can't non-believers tell the believers to grow the fuck up and grow a pair? Also, there's a host of research demonstrating how religiosity galvanizes in-group / out-group formation, fostering intolerance toward outsiders. It's quite ironic for a proselytizing religion.There's much that can be said for or against any religion or faith-based belief and there's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with them. That isn't the same as constantly attacking it. Unfortunately many religions share the same flaws as Christianity yet bashing Christianity specifically tends to be most popular. Not that I endorse generally bashing religion any more, but at least it would be more consistant. Christianity is no better or worse than any other religion and we cannot claim to be tolerant of each other, while at the same time saying "Yeah but those guys are total assholes" constantly.


Didn't this guy die for our sins thereby removing original sin (Atonement) and producing a blank slate? I read that once.The sacrifice accounts for original sin (and all sins) it doesn't make the believer a "good person" any more than if your rich uncle started paying all your debts suddenly made you a "rich person". The debts are paid, but not by any resources you possess.




I'm not sure why you keep beating the Kantian drum. Motive is simply not a boolean statement; we don't have to take altruism off the table. Additionally, Kantian Freedom doesn't offer you much when coupled with Duty and his necessity for God. Kant thinks in ridiculous universals most of the time and his arguments don't hold up very well, especially against contemporary ethical philosophers. While arguments for Psychological Egoism are silly, Divine Command Theory is scary shit.Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that all of Kant's ideas had to be taken as a whole. I'm not beating the Kant drum, I beat the drum of some of his concepts because I happen to think they are eloquent explanations. We aren't capable of absolute purity, but we are capable of free will and morals are an example of how we can choose "better" or "worse". There are several other philosophers with whom I agree with on other topics and concepts, and with whom I agree with more than Kant, but on this particular issue I felt it most relevant.

[Clove]

It wasn't implied, you just decided that was what I meant.Then why don't you explain exactly what you meant rather than simply contradict?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Then why don't you explain exactly what you meant rather than simply contradict?

And that's exactly why I'm not getting into this, with you.

[radamanthys]

No. Having a belief that conflicts with another is not intolerant. People need to grow a pair.

See advice above. I don't give a flying fuck what religion anyone in power is- nobody has required me to be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Sikh, or anything at all. Frankly I'm tired of the argument "but people will FEEL bad..." to those people I say "fuck you, and grow up." We have nurtured a culture where it's popular to criticize, particularly anything that's mainstream and that's fine to a point, but frankly it isn't hip to bash ANYONE's religion-it's disgusting.

I'm starting a new religion. It's called "the church of raping other people's children." You'd best not criticize.

[Clove]

It wasn't implied, you simply decided that was what I meant.

Just because there are aspects to something that make me uncomfortable, doesn't mean I find it immoral or anything of the sort. But frankly, I don't want to get into an argument with you about it, given you've clearly already made up your mind. Arguing with a wall isn't something that interests me. :shrug:I'm sorry if you take offense that I assumed you had a problem with the morality of religious concepts. It was a natural assumption given what you revealed especially since (where religion is concerned) the topic tends to center around morality/immorality. If you are uncomfortable for some other reason, I'd be interested in hearing them. Yes I have solid opinions (on just about everything) and everyone knows it; but don't let that be your excuse.

[Clove]

I'm starting a new religion. It's called "the church of raping other people's children." You'd best not criticize.I think the general statutes of all 50 states would do the criticizing for me. Thanks for being ridiculous.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm sorry if you take offense that I assumed you had a problem with the morality of religious concepts. It was a natural assumption given what you revealed especially since (where religion is concerned) the topic tends to center around morality/immorality. If you are uncomfortable for some other reason, I'd be interested in hearing them. Yes I have solid opinions (on just about everything) and everyone knows it; but don't let that be your excuse.

When your panties un-bunch themselves, maybe I will.

'Till then, maybe you should just get worked up over what other people say, instead of what you imagine I may have to say.

[Clove]

When your panties un-bunch themselves, maybe I will.

'Till then, maybe you should just get worked up over what other people say, instead of what you imagine I may have to say.If you think this:

Really? And why exactly is it immoral to have self-interest? is getting my panties in a bunch then you have a problem with perception. I'm not that subtle.

[Clove]

Being raised Lutheran, currently a converted non-observant Catholic...

Clove, you have at least one rather large assumption going that isn't entirely accurate.

Moderate Protestants (ie the Lutheran church, ALC midwest that I was brought up in) may believe in original sin, but they do not harp on it and use it as an excuse to make you feel like a piece of shit like the Catholic religion does.

All Christians are not the same, and to use original sin, of all things, as some sort of binding glue between the different variations Christianity has taken on since oh, Martin friggin Luther, is disingenious.I don't disagree with you at all. Christianity has many sects with dramatically different beliefs or interpretations on the religion; but if the critics can lump them all together and say "Christians believe" or "Outspoken Christians believe" than I have little problem doing the same for the opposite effect.

I do agree with you one point, that if both believers and non-believers alike could just accept that their way is not the only way, that people with different belief systems can peacefully coexist.... Well, many wars would be averted.

Which is why I am a Christian, but I refuse to throw my hat into any specific church's ring at this point. When I do, I find myself drawn to the Methodists church in town because theirs is a welcoming parish, with sermons of joy and beauty, not hellfire and brimstone browbeating like I hear at the Catholic church.That's all I'm saying, but honestly I don't have a problem with another thinking they have "the one truth." anymore than I'm offended by a man who thinks he's Napoleon. In the interest of tolerance my response to that is a bland "that's nice, I'll take my chances."

Like you I don't throw my hat into any one church (or even any one religion, although I was brought up in several Christian sects, so if forced to identify with a religion I'll claim generic "Christian"). I do consider myself spiritual, however.

I really find arguing against someone elses' beliefs bad form and extremely counterproductive to a peaceful, tolerant society. The excuse is always "well that religion/belief is completely intolerant... so it's okay." Not really. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd much rather hear what you believe and why rather than hear how you think this religion is wrong and that is wrong. Of course many religions often go on the offensive; but it's not an excuse for the rest of us and we don't "show the other guy" anything by sinking to their level. I'll look to Wicca for the ultimate tolerance principle "Do what you will, but harm noone."

[radamanthys]

I don't disagree with you at all. Christianity has many sects with dramatically different beliefs' or interpretations on the religion; but if the critics can lump them all together and say "Christians believe" or "Outspoken Christians believe" than I have little problem doing the same for the opposite effect.That's all I'm saying, but honestly I don't have a problem with another thinking they have "the one truth." anymore than I'm offended by a man who thinks he's Napoleon. In the interest of tolerance my response to that is a bland "that's nice, I'll take my chances."

Like you I don't throw my hat into any one church (or even any one religion, although I was brought up in several Christian sects, so if forced to identify with a religion I'll claim generic "Christian"). I do consider myself spiritual, however.

I really find arguing against someone elses' beliefs bad form and extremely counterproductive to a peaceful, tolerant society. The excuse is always "well that religion/belief is completely intolerant... so it's okay." Not really. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd much rather hear what you believe and why rather than hear how you think this religion is wrong and that is wrong. Of course many religions often go on the offensive; but it's not an excuse for the rest of us and we don't "show the other guy" anything by sinking to their level. I'll look to Wicca for the ultimate tolerance principle "Do what you will, but harm noone."

It sounds like we're saying similar things, just from different ends. I'm criticizing the overly critical christians. You're criticizing the overly critical everyone else.

"Intolerance is preached by some christians, but not all. However, criticizing (being intolerant of) the entire religion for the sins of some is hypocritical."


My point with the "raping someone's children religion" was supposed to be ironic and ridiculous. Most of my argument here has been against politicians who attempt to make laws based upon the tenets of a religion. Your response was completely on-point. Take it another step, and consider that "right and wrong" are not a matter of a common morality but of cultural upbringing*. Where those of a christian tradition may see a certain form of black and white, you can't think that it must be applicable to every American. What if I started gaining success in my lobbying of congress to repeal laws against raping other people's children? That's some of the outrage others feel.

And it's nowhere near 'disgusting' to scream and yell when values are being forced upon me. The debate tends to push into whether the tenet itself is of merit. It shouldn't get to that point. Religious morality should stay within the practitioners of said religion. If a Muslim thinks that alcohol is wrong, then they shouldn't drink, not lobby congress to ban alcohol for everyone. If it breaches that barrier, you're damned right I'm going to be critical. It's nothing against the religion. It's the certain group that's attempting the push.

That said, I refuse to believe that christians are all-around good, just because they say that they are christians. There are some very bad people who use religion for their own personal search to gain power, to gain praise or to enact punishment (and a plethora of other reasons). I would say that evil exists just as much within that faith as within the rest of humanity. Saying (preaching) otherwise is extraordinarily dangerous.

*This is where the moral absolutist vs relativist argument comes into play.

[Daniel]

If you think this:
is getting my panties in a bunch then you have a problem with perception. I'm not that subtle.

That's right. You'll get your internet posse and fuck up her rep, 'yo.

[Clove]

And it's nowhere near 'disgusting' to scream and yell when values are being forced upon me. The debate tends to push into whether the tenet itself is of merit. It shouldn't get to that point.I don't disagree with you at all; but the outrage should be focused on the bad law. I don't care who thought it was a good idea and why (that's their perogative), I care about killing it where it stands. For the most part I have faith in the majority. I'm not afraid of the existence of skin-heads or the KKK, because I just don't think so many Americans are so ignorant and extreme that the existance of such intolerant and oppressive attitudes is a threat to civil liberties. I feel the same about Roe vs. Wade, or gay rights etc., etc.


That said, I refuse to believe that christians are all-around good, just because they say that they are christians. There are some very bad people who use religion for their own personal search to gain power, to gain praise or to enact punishment (and a plethora of other reasons). I would say that evil exists just as much within that faith as within the rest of humanity. Saying (preaching) otherwise is extraordinarily dangerous.

*This is where the moral absolutist vs relativist argument comes into play.Christians aren't all-around good and they aren't all-around bad. To generalize such a diverse religion is about as productive and accurate as to generalize a race. Depending on the sect and the church, depending on its leadership and its congregation, they're as good or bad as any group of people. At the end of the day, to condemn the religion because of the behavior of some of its worse members is like condemning a minority because of the same; or condemning engineering because of bad engineers, etc.

[Clove]

That's right. You'll get your internet posse and fuck up her rep, 'yo.Nope and if I did I'm sure she'd care about it even less than you do. BTW how do you know she's not IN my posse?

[Fallen]

Nope and if I did I'm sure she'd care about it even less than you do. BTW how do you know she's not IN my posse?

Good point. Even secular differences are tossed aside in the face of matters of overriding importance, such as reputation.

[Back]

I have already observed in American culture a sizable shift toward what the author of the following quoted article predicts for the future of America.


Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

More... (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html)

As you know, that is a sign of the end times.

Guess who was bored this morning? Yes, it was I.

The article the quote came from is pretty interesting. Like this part...


Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.


The guy who wrote this calls himself “a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality.” As if there aren’t enough denominations out there... but anyway.

I think he pinned down the reason why some individuals of a religion are criticized by protestants in the second quote. It’s a good article but I don’t see it as anti-christianity-as-a-whole to criticize some jackasses who use it as a tool or reason to claim superiority over others.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm not entirely sure how an agnostic or atheist soldier throwing him/herself on a grenade in order to save the rest of the company wouldn't be an altruistic and selfless act. Or a similar situation involving a like minded cop acting as a human shield ... or a person tossing a kid out of the way of a speeding truck.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument.

[Clove]

I'm not entirely sure how an agnostic or atheist soldier throwing him/herself on a grenade in order to save the rest of the company wouldn't be an altruistic and selfless act. Or a similar situation involving a like minded cop acting as a human shield ... or a person tossing a kid out of the way of a speeding truck.

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument.I'm not saying that those actions aren't almost entirely selfless but with very little imagination you can see the possibility of self-interest. Perhaps that soldier reacted knowing that he wouldn't be able to "live with himself" if the others died and he didn't. With that seed, I'll leave the other myriad of potential selfish motivations to your fertile imagination.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm not saying that those actions aren't almost entirely selfless but with very little imagination you can see the possibility of self-interest. Perhaps that soldier reacted knowing that he wouldn't be able to "live with himself" if the others died and he didn't. With that seed, I'll leave the other myriad of potential selfish motivations to your fertile imagination.

While the brain certainly recognizes events well before we cognitively acknowledge them, I don't think an act of self-sacrifice in such cases allows for enough time to also consider any sort of self-interest.

[Clove]

While the brain certainly recognizes events well before we cognitively acknowledge them, I don't think an act of self-sacrifice in such cases allows for enough time to also consider any sort of self-interest.Then it wouldn't be able to consider any sort of selflessness either and whether or not it's selfish or selfless becomes moot. Why then WOULD an animal destroy itself for others' sake (stripped of any reasoning)?

[Jace Solo]

I don't have time to read through all 6 pages we have so far...but I read the first few and I'd like to draw at a few parallels and hope that they haven't been covered:

I'd like to make a statement that your selfless acts are guided by your moral compass. Christian, Keller, or otherwise.

Christianity (and many other religions) are the magnetism for this moral compass. And there are always gonna be a few little metal objects (fanatics) along your journey that is gonna make your pointer twitch with a "Hey, what the hell?" Statement. Replace Christianity for Liberalism and you'll see a lot of the same trade off. Creating reliance on the ideas and foundations but one comes out to be a little more selfish.

Lets examine one area:
Tithing (10%) or Taxes (40+%), both are expected, but one gives the freedom to ignore it. They both hope to redistribute wealth, but one majorly to the less fortunate, the other, (we'll say it's half and half to be generous, but we can see by the 9000 earmarks it's no where near that) half to the less fortunate, half to special interest.

I cite your note of zealot Christians.

I think that the fact that it's moving in another direction is proof that they aren't really that zealous. It is the minority that are having legislation pasted that pushes the Christians out the door even while the majority of our country is Christian (when broken down into other religions and atheism). So that is a lack of passion to uphold the goals, which would be to help others get to heaven (which is pretty selfless when you think about it...cause it doesn't further advance you). There is no other need associated with Christianity, the gift is received and the goal is to pass it along. All out reach funding and should be made with that goal. It's not always, some people get impatient, that fault is shared with the Muslin religion...and that's human nature perverting the meaning, just like the meaning of Socialism is been perverted...and why humans have 0% of making it run correctly...a higher power would be needed to make it work.

As far as the altruism of it. Remember that in Christianity you are asked to do good works but it is faith alone in Christ that gets you in the door. The old testament was more along the "Do good things and we'll see" idea. So any acts that Christians do are because it is guided by their moral compass and not by their need to appease God to get in. They've already done that when they allowed Jesus to take their sin. (Woot for empaths) Means people have no need to do any works at all should they choose thus any they do is out of the goodness of their heart which is guided by their moral compass.

[Apotheosis]

As far as the altruism of it. Remember that in Christianity you are asked to do good works but it is faith alone in Christ that gets you in the door. The old testament was more along the "Do good things and we'll see" idea. So any acts that Christians do are because it is guided by their moral compass and not by their need to appease God to get in. They've already done that when they allowed Jesus to take their sin. (Woot for empaths) Means people have no need to do any works at all should they choose thus any they do is out of the goodness of their heart which is guided by their moral compass.


Right, but that's only one faction of Christianity that makes that claim... and it was basically one of the Theological arguments of the reformation.

More conservative factions of Christianity would say that, in essence, Christians are required to do good works, for the purpose of being an example to the rest of the world.

In other words, talk the talk, then walk the walk.

This is why people laugh at certain Christian denominations, because they're all saying this one thing, but not living it.

[Tsa`ah]

Then it wouldn't be able to recognize any sort of selflessness either.

Of course not. It's the person ... the personality ... the morality. These aren't synonymous with religion.

I don't believe there's this pro-con checklist the brain runs through before an action of self-sacrifice is taken. I think it's more along the lines of conditioning and morality than anything.

A person sees a grenade and reacts based on their morality and conditioning. PFC Johnson recognizes that a grenade has taken a short hop into the foxhole he shares with three other men and resorts to self preservation ... GTFOASAP. Sgt Smith sees the same grenade taking a short hop, and being a little more seasoned, realizes no one is going to GTFO in time, and bellyflops on it.

The human brain is the fastest computer on earth, but there is a distinct lag between the the brain perceiving and cognitive thought ... and only so much interaction is possible. It's no different than the lag one would receive using a 14.4 modem with today's internet/web.

[Tsa`ah]

and whether or not it's selfish or selfless becomes moot. Why then WOULD an animal destroy itself for others' sake (stripped of any reasoning)?

Why don't all animals flee from a forest fire? Why does a mother hen, despite her urge for flight, cover her young and die?

We can go into instinct in the case of animals, tossing out notions of morality. It's not so simple with human beings.

To suggest there's no such thing as altruism or selflessness when incidents a plenty (not allowing for much thought at all) exist to the contrary.

[Nieninque]

Fuck Christians

[Clove]

Why don't all animals flee from a forest fire? Why does a mother hen, despite her urge for flight, cover her young and die?

We can go into instinct in the case of animals, tossing out notions of morality. It's not so simple with human beings.

To suggest there's no such thing as altruism or selflessness when incidents a plenty (not allowing for much thought at all) exist to the contrary.Fine, but you can't attribute selflessness to humans but discount selfishness because in such and such a circumstance "there's no time to reason" if that's the case then neither selfishness nor selflessness apply. If it isn't both are possible and I suggest that when a selfish interest is possible for a human being, they will have one (however slight).

[Tsa`ah]

That both are possible was outlined.

[Clove]

That both are possible was outlined.In the grenade example the guy who "GTFO" is demonstrating more self-interest. The guy who jumps on the grenade demonstrates less-self interest, but it's there all the same and I gave you one example of what that self-interest could be. If a person has time to reason at all, their self-interest will factor into their behavior one way or another, to greater or lesser extent. If they have no time to reason than it's entirely moot.

[Tsa`ah]

I disagree that not having time to reason makes it moot. We react in the manor our moral compass points us.

Our house is on fire and my wife runs into the house after our children ... that's a selfless act, not a selfish act ... and there's no thought involved beyond "my children are going to die if I don't .. ".

[Clove]

I disagree that not having time to reason makes it moot. We react in the manor our moral compass points us.

Our house is on fire and my wife runs into the house after our children ... that's a selfless act, not a selfish act ... and there's no thought involved beyond "my children are going to die if I don't .. ".Then it becomes a matter of training and isn't distinguishable from a lion jumping through a hoop of fire (moot). Or there is reasoning involved and either the woman derives satisfaction knowing that her children might live if she sacrifices herself (selfish motivation) or she considers life too painful to consider if her children die while she lives (selfish motivation).

[phantasm]

Your reasoning could also lead to the argument that a fireman, doing his normal daily duties and rushing into a fire to save people is a selfish act because he is doing it for his pay, or for the notoriety.

Now assume you are the guy laying in a burning building with no hope for escape, suddenly a fireman shows up and drags you out.

The internal motivations that caused the fire fighter to perform this selfless act are of less concern than the fact that he actually just did something great.

[Beguiler]

Fuck Christians

Wow. So much hostility. I'll pray for you. :hug2:

(And I will, no sarcasm intended.)

[Some Rogue]

Fuck dentists

:medieval:

[Keller]

Wow. So much hostility. I'll pray for you. :hug2:

(And I will, no sarcasm intended.)

I majored in Christianity (they called it "Religion", but that was BS) in college. I generally wrote my major papers and gave my class presentations on making textual arguments (and so I discovered that I should be a lawyer) that most students would find objectionable (Jesus said you didn't have to believe in him to saved; The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality; Paul wasn't talking about homosexuality as we know it today; etc).

A handful of times I would have groups of classmates pray outside my door following my presentations.

It just made me recognize how dumb that shit really is. If you're going to pray for me -- then don't tell me about it. Does your god only answer prayers if you alert the person you're praying for in advance? Do you think you're doing anything other than alienating the person you're praying for when you essentially tell them, "I'm going to tell my imaginary friend that you should be a better person. I hope he helps make you a better person."

Fuck that.

[Beguiler]

I majored in Christianity (they called it "Religion", but that was BS) in college. I generally wrote my major papers and gave my class presentations on making textual arguments (and so I discovered that I should be a lawyer) that most students would find objectionable (Jesus said you didn't have to believe in him to saved; The sin of Sodom was not homosexuality; Paul wasn't talking about homosexuality as we know it today; etc).

A handful of times I would have groups of classmates pray outside my door following my presentations.

It just made me recognize how dumb that shit really is. If you're going to pray for me -- then don't tell me about it. Does your god only answer prayers if you alert the person you're praying for in advance? Do you think you're doing anything other than alienating the person you're praying for when you essentially tell them, "I'm going to tell my imaginary friend that you should be a better person. I hope he helps make you a better person."

Fuck that.

Did you ever for one minute stop to consider that it was meant sincerely,and not in a mean-spirieted manner? I thought not.

[Clove]

Fuck Hot, Female, Big-Breasted, Wide-Hipped, Black-Haired Christians


:medieval::bananahit:

[Beguiler]

:bananahit:

rofl!

[Clove]

It just made me recognize how dumb that shit really is. If you're going to pray for me -- then don't tell me about it. Does your god only answer prayers if you alert the person you're praying for in advance? Do you think you're doing anything other than alienating the person you're praying for when you essentially tell them, "I'm going to tell my imaginary friend that you should be a better person. I hope he helps make you a better person."

Fuck that.I had no idea you perceived human motivations as so black and white and simple. Even assuming that most of them were that silly, you don't think some of them might have had more complex reasons or even *gasp* rational reasons for praying outside your door or telling you they were praying for you?

P.S. I think I think your papers would have been a blast to read, btw.

[Keller]

Did you ever for one minute stop to consider that it was meant sincerely,and not in a mean-spirieted manner? I thought not.

Of course I considered their intentions. They thought I would feel the outpouring of love, compassion, and community.

If they would have ever considered how I might view their ritual, they might have realized that I am capable of coming to rational conclusions and might be offended to be confronted with their opinion that they think I am somehow in need of their prayer.

[Keller]

I had no idea you perceived human motivations as so black and white and simple. Even assuming that most of them were that silly, you don't think some of them might have had more complex reasons or even *gasp* rational reasons for praying outside your door or telling you they were praying for you?

P.S. I think I think your papers would have been a blast to read, btw.

I'll try to dig them up. I know I have hard copies of them, but I'm not sure I have the floppy disk (that makes me feel old) that has them all.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Did you go to a private college or something?

[Clove]

I'll try to dig them up. I know I have hard copies of them, but I'm not sure I have the floppy disk (that makes me feel old) that has them all.If you dig up electronic versions or can scan 'em, ping me I wouldn't mind reading them. They sound similar to other essays I've written, I'd be interested in your opinions.

[Clove]

If they would have ever considered how I might view their ritual, they might have realized that I am capable of coming to rational conclusions and might be offended to be confronted with their opinion that they think I am somehow in need of their prayer.Or you might have responded in other ways (which I'm sure was their hope).

I mean I'm sure when people are bashing the "misguided ideas of others' religions" they're less concerned with how people will perceive their behavior and more concerned with "doing what's right" or "shedding light". Or am I way off base here?

[Keller]

Or you might have responded in other ways (which I'm sure was their hope).

I mean I'm sure when people are bashing the "misguided ideas of others' religions" they're less concerned with how people will perceive their behavior and more concerned with "doing what's right" or "shedding light". Or am I way off base here?

Not at all. When I brought up this example, I definitely wanted Beguiler to see that his/her pronouncement would just alienate the person being prayed for. I really didn't give two thoughts to how he/she would perceive my example or the reasons I brought it up.

[Tsa`ah]

Then it becomes a matter of training and isn't distinguishable from a lion jumping through a hoop of fire (moot). Or there is reasoning involved and either the woman derives satisfaction knowing that her children might live if she sacrifices herself (selfish motivation) or she considers life too painful to consider if her children die while she lives (selfish motivation).

I don't know if jump on the grenade is part of military training ... nor "run into the burning house" part of anyone's training other than those in the fire department.

I don't think you can chalk it up to being self-serving/selfish unless that thought drives the initial reaction. It's not porn until there are at least tits on the screen, it doesn't matter if the information is already there and loading.

[Clove]

I don't know if jump on the grenade is part of military training ... nor "run into the burning house" part of anyone's training other than those in the fire department.:facepalm: You just don't get it, do you? The "moral compass" you're talking about IS the training. So you either behave as you're trained to (in which case selfish/selfless is moot) or you behave as you decide to (in which case there will be a selfish motivation somewhere, however slight).

[Clove]

Not at all. When I brought up this example, I definitely wanted Beguiler to see that his/her pronouncement would just alienate the person being prayed for. I really didn't give two thoughts to how he/she would perceive my example or the reasons I brought it up.I think you use "would" where you might better use "could". The example you used can (and often does alienate), but individual results vary. I've seen behavior like that intrigue and attract people too.

My point is people don't do what they sincerely believe "is the right thing to do" with a consideration of how it others will respond to it, that would be doing the politic thing (and we all know how often "politics" and "morals" coexist :).

[Danical]

There's much that can be said for or against any religion or faith-based belief and there's nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with them. That isn't the same as constantly attacking it. Unfortunately many religions share the same flaws as Christianity yet bashing Christianity specifically tends to be most popular. Not that I endorse generally bashing religion any more, but at least it would be more consistant. Christianity is no better or worse than any other religion and we cannot claim to be tolerant of each other, while at the same time saying "Yeah but those guys are total assholes" constantly.

I agree sweeping generalizations are bad. What I take issue with is the bombardment of religious motivated legislation and bigotry as was seen in Prop8. Verbally bashing a religion isn't cool but actively removing the civil liberties of a specific population is taking it to the next level. Obviously, not all Christians or religious people voted "Yes" but more (with a high religiosity rating) did than not. Of course, the numbers were different the higher/lower you went up/down the Authoritarian scale for conservative/liberal Christian sect ideology. However, the numbers are disheartening as a Methodist-raised, atheist-leaning agnostic.



The sacrifice accounts for original sin (and all sins) it doesn't make the believer a "good person" any more than if your rich uncle started paying all your debts suddenly made you a "rich person". The debts are paid, but not by any resources you possess.

My point was your introduction of Original Sin brought absolutely nothing to the table but rather was a distraction from the issue at hand.



Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that all of Kant's ideas had to be taken as a whole. I'm not beating the Kant drum, I beat the drum of some of his concepts because I happen to think they are eloquent explanations. We aren't capable of absolute purity, but we are capable of free will and morals are an example of how we can choose "better" or "worse". There are several other philosophers with whom I agree with on other topics and concepts, and with whom I agree with more than Kant, but on this particular issue I felt it most relevant.

I never said you had to accept all Kant's ideas and I didn't imply it either. I was only talking about his moral philosophy with respect to Freedom. Don't get me wrong, I think Kant was a badass and a baller. His introduction of the Categorical Imperative was awesome but I think the underpinnings of his moral philosophy are weak and his conception of Freedom, Duty, Price, and Dignity are all the necessary consequent his initial faulty premises.

It doesn't matter if you don't have absolute purity, you've lost nothing with respect to altruistic actions from a theoretical standpoint. Obviously, we can't examine the thought processes transpiring while or before the action occurs.

A lot of other posts have been around the solder/grenade scenario and that's really the start of Psychological Egoism. It's not terribly difficult to refute and it's also a pretty depressing way to look at things as well (not that the latter has any argumentative merit).

[Back]

What are you guys arguing about?

Self-preservation? Animal instinct. End of discussion.

[Danical]

What are you guys arguing about?

Self-preservation? Animal instinct. End of discussion.

You missed the entire point of the argument. Why would a singular person sacrifice themself, overriding their animal instinct, to save the lives of others?

Is it because they were acting out of altruism or self-interest? That's the question.

[Back]

You missed the entire point of the argument. Why would a singular person sacrifice themself, overriding their animal instinct, to save the lives of others?

Is it because they were acting out of altruism or self-interest? That's the question.

Yes, I did. Thanks.

As to the topic at hand... I do not think one person preserving the life of another is solely a selfish act.

[Clove]

It doesn't matter if you don't have absolute purity, you've lost nothing with respect to altruistic actions from a theoretical standpoint. Obviously, we can't examine the thought processes transpiring while or before the action occurs.

A lot of other posts have been around the solder/grenade scenario and that's really the start of Psychological Egoism. It's not terribly difficult to refute and it's also a pretty depressing way to look at things as well (not that the latter has any argumentative merit).It doesn't matter if you have absolute purity and I find nothing depressing about the involvement of a selfish motivation in everything we do (even the best things). It's no more depressing to me than gravity, it is what it is and in my opinion our inabilty to reach perfection where selfless acts are concerned doesn't necessarily diminish the beauty or power of them. In my opinion it is important to acknowledge our intrinsic selfishness for humility's sake.

My point was your introduction of Original Sin brought absolutely nothing to the table but rather was a distraction from the issue at hand.My point was generalizing the motivation behind christians' good works was equally pointless and distracting, not to mention refutable- I simply tossed out a contradictory generalization (but one that has some support from the holy texts that Christians base their religion on).

[Danical]

It doesn't matter if you have absolute purity and I find nothing depressing about the involvement of a selfish motivation in everything we do (even the best things). It's no more depressing to me than gravity, it is what it is and in my opinion our inabilty to reach perfection where selfless acts are concerned doesn't necessarily diminish the beauty or power of them. In my opinion it is important to acknowledge our intrinsic selfishness for humility's sake.

I think a lot of people are doing implied extrapolation. As you say, there's nothing wrong with selfish acts so long as they don't harm/hurt/impinge on others. There's not a god damn thing wrong with wanting salvation. But it's generally considered better to do good behaviors for the intrinsic nature of action instead of for salvation. That's where I think people are blurring the distinction.


[QUOTE=Clove;905587]My point was generalizing the motivation behind christians' good works was equally pointless and distracting, not to mention refutable- I simply tossed out a contradictory generalization (but one that has some support from the holy texts that Christians base their religion on).

:shrug: I still don't really see the point of throwing OS in the mix since it didn't help. But I tend

[phantasm]

When I'm done shopping at the grocery store, instead of leaving my cart in the parking lot cart bin, I push it all the way back into the store.
I do it so that the guy who has to lug in all the carts has an easier time at it. Please analyze my behavior as it relates to this topic.

[Warriorbird]

You're the most Christian-y Christian ever. Let me discriminate against you.

This isn't even photoedited.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/c/c2/Rapture_ready.jpg/800px-Rapture_ready.jpg

[Clove]

When I'm done shopping at the grocery store, instead of leaving my cart in the parking lot cart bin, I push it all the way back into the store.
I do it so that the guy who has to lug in all the carts has an easier time at it. Please analyze my behavior as it relates to this topic.Good for you.

[Clove]

:shrug: I still don't really see the point of throwing OS in the mix since it didn't help. But I tendI'm sorry you don't see the usefulness of it, clearly I felt it was a worthwhile point or I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I'll happily concede there's no point in belaboring it further in the interest of exploring more interesting points.

As for whether or not human beings are capable of purely selfless acts. I'm of the opinion that they aren't. Obviously perfection (in anything) is the ultimate ideal; but I don't think it's humanly possible (in anything). Never-the-less we ARE capable of drawing closer to perfection. We are capable of acts more selfless than the last (even if they will never be purely selfless). There is our motivation and there is its beauty- perpetual opportunity to improve upon ourselves (at least until we die and then I don't know what happens).

[Mabus]

When I'm done shopping at the grocery store, instead of leaving my cart in the parking lot cart bin, I push it all the way back into the store.
I do it so that the guy who has to lug in all the carts has an easier time at it. Please analyze my behavior as it relates to this topic.
A lot of that depends on your past, your current psychological state and your own self-perceived motivations.

It could be that you worked doing this sort of thing (collecting carts) or knew others that did that had some connection to you, and do not wish to cause the current workers "harm" that you yourself have felt (or felt for others) from people leaving the carts all over the lot.

It could be a driver of the child-mind seeking to please others and/or be praised. Posting the matter (where praise may be received more easily) points toward this as a higher possibility then the first.

You could firmly believe it is the correct and responsible thing to do.

Without data of/from the source it would be hard to fully analyze the matter.

[Danical]

I'm sorry you don't see the usefulness of it, clearly I felt it was a worthwhile point or I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I'll happily concede there's no point in belaboring it further in the interest of exploring more interesting points.

I didn't finish my post; I hit reply in a flurry because my boss pooped in without knocking and what I thought I typed out wasn't there since I was in the middle of editing. Hence the "But I tend . . . " Needless to say, we'll agree to move on.

Personally, I don't really see a problem with people having selfish motivations to do good things. If you want to donate to a charity because you'll get the tax write off, radsticks. If you want to help some lady across the street, awesomesauce. I lean more towards the ends justifying the means than the means justifying the ends. While that's wildly nebulous, trying to quantify the utility of every single action and it's ramifications is daunting.

It's why I don't see a problem with Christians helping out with others even if it's for selfish motivation. I cook and feed the homeless once a month through the local Methodist church. I do it because I think helping those in need is a good thing and I don't care if they do it because we share the same ideology or if they just want a recliner in heaven; good work is the product and I'm happy they let this non-believer help out. I'm more concerned with why people commit harmful actions. It's upsetting to see believers do harmful things in the name of their religion.

[Clove]

Psycological egoism or psycological hedonism contain arguments that help illustrate my point but they're too black and white to describe human motivations. In my opinion to say all human behavior contains selfish motivations is not the same as saying all human behavior is entirely selfishly motivated. We are complicated creatures.

[Fallen]

There was a line in a recent South Park that seemed really rather poignant. It was parodying the Jonas Brothers selling sex to teen girls while wearing promise rings in effect, but, what the guy said was, 'I've made billions off of Christian ignorance for decades now! And do you know why? Because Christians are retarded! They believe in a talking dead guy!'

It was a funny episode.

[Gan]

Being a baptist by historical context... I see self-interest christianism all the time, and thats what really turns me off about religion in general.

Self interest, inherent in Catholicism due to the salvation through good deeds, is an example I can agree with. By nature, Baptists do not believe in salvation through good deeds but salvation through Jesus. Jesus is the key for a Baptist. And many lose sight of that in their endeavors to be noticed by their neighbor.

I have met some truly unselfish Baptists in my church though. The ones who are not pushy about their faith, not afraid to show it, but not prompt to display when its not appropriate or necessary. They act for the benefit of others without any apparent motive, and because their faith is not through salvation/good deed, they appear to simply care about others. Unfortunately thats more of the exception rather than the norm. :(

[Tsa`ah]

:facepalm: You just don't get it, do you? The "moral compass" you're talking about IS the training. So you either behave as you're trained to (in which case selfish/selfless is moot) or you behave as you decide to (in which case there will be a selfish motivation somewhere, however slight).

I just don't buy it ... sorry.

I would agree that most of our actions are based on selfish reasons, no matter how slight. But to say that no action is without selfish reason is at best a losing argument.

[CrystalTears]

Seeing as how one really never knows what the motivator was anyway, not sure what difference it makes.

[radamanthys]

All humans are motivated by self-interest, whether enlightened or not. Most 'do good' either for delayed reward (heaven), or that doing good makes them feel immediately good. Others do whatever the hell they please becasuse it makes them feel good. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's all self interest. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps the world spinning, so to speak.

It's when people act for their own interests at the cost of others that you get into the idea of 'evil' or 'bad'. That doesn't seem to apply to this debate.

[Gan]

All humans are motivated by self-interest, whether enlightened or not. Most 'do good' either for delayed reward (heaven), or that doing good makes them feel immediately good. Others do whatever the hell they please becasuse it makes them feel good. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's all self interest. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps the world spinning, so to speak.

It's when people act for their own interests at the cost of others that you get into the idea of 'evil' or 'bad'. That doesn't seem to apply to this debate.

Adam Smith agrees. ;)

[Clove]

I just don't buy it ... sorry.

I would agree that most of our actions are based on selfish reasons, no matter how slight. But to say that no action is without selfish reason is at best a losing argument.A losing argument because you don't buy it? I'm sorry I've disappointed such an authority.

Not to split hairs but I said any human behavior involving our reason includes self-interest, which is not to say that it is based on self-interest. I also stated that actions that are mere reflex or a result of conditioning are neither selfish or selfless; they are out of bounds of those descriptions.

Psychological egoism claims all our actions are based on self-interest but my opinion is that model oversimplifies the reality. I do not believe that we are capable of purely selfless acts, however. While they may not be devoid of selfish reasons we are capable of amazing sacrifices (that are largely if not wholly selfless). I'm sorry if you missed this distinction, but I'm comforted that others have not.

[Xeromist]

I'm too lazy to read through all the posts thus far since it's late and I've been out and about, but I think I'd be more concerned about growing discrimination AMONG Christians than against. I mean, the teachings of Jesus-dude were supposed to be about loving your neighbor and seeing every person as one of God's children, regardless of who or what they are. I hear more about who's going to hell these days than I do about loving my Muslim neighbor. Sorry in advance to all the people whose points I just reiterated.

[ElanthianSiren]

If you read primary sources, it was semi-common for christians to kill each other as heretics for not remaining "true" to what Jesus really meant. This is particularly true in the times directly following the crucifiction when people thought the rapture was definitely destined for the near future and that their lack of conversion of others to the "true" message of Jesus jepordized their salvation.

[Mabus]

If you read primary sources, it was semi-common for christians to kill each other as heretics for not remaining "true" to what Jesus really meant.
I would like to read those sources. Can you post some titles or links, please?

[Apotheosis]

If you read primary sources, it was semi-common for christians to kill each other as heretics for not remaining "true" to what Jesus really meant. This is particularly true in the times directly following the crucifiction when people thought the rapture was definitely destined for the near future and that their lack of conversion of others to the "true" message of Jesus jepordized their salvation.



Hmm, I studied Christian history in a secular college, and do not recall any of this...

#1, the rapture is a recent concept which only concerns a small slice/sect of a christian denomination.

#2, from about AD. 60 through AD 311, Christians went through various degrees of persecution, including, but not limited to, torture, mass murder, political & social ostracism, crucifixion, and other forms of martyrdom.

The "major" early heresies were: Nestorianism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Eutychianism, and Manichaeism... with the exception of Manichaeism, most of these "early" heresies were related to the "nature" of Christ, and had minute nuances, regardless, they strayed from the prevailing/early teachings of the apostles, as well as the Bible + Didache..

Oddly enough, it was a Nestorian Christian that influenced Mohamed's views on Christ, which might have had a different impact/influence on the teaching of Islam regarding Christianity had Mohamed NOT been influenced by a Nestorian.

Manichaeism is an early form of Gnosticism/Theosophy/"New Age Thought", etc..... This is the particular "heresy" that Augustine fought against, after being a follower of it for 9 years.

[ElanthianSiren]

I confused the rapture with the second coming. I've never understood the big difference between them to be perfectly honest though I'm aware differences exist. They more or less turn into "blah blah blah" when people try to lay them out for me.

Look into the struggle between James and Paul regarding how Christianity should proceed. It's pretty interesting.

Early Christians were also particularly harsh on the idea of bringing women into the priestly life, and I believe that particular sect was persecuted. This has to do with Paul (memory hazy).

St. John Chrysostom advocated shunning and persecution of christians for attending Jewish festivals.

Look into the matter of the Donatists under Augustine.

Look into the matter of the gnostics.

Finally, with all that study, I'm surprised you've never heard of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre sometime in the late 1500s.

ps. I sold back all the books I had on studying religion unfortunately, including the primary source books I had, and even if I had them, I don't think I'd feel like typing out the articles in them. A good series though is the sources of western tradition one if you suppliment it with other primary source books. One thing we were encouraged to do in the courses I had was to look at the writings of non christians beside christians at similar times. Theoretically, it helps you look at them more objectively and more thoroughly.

[radamanthys]

Yea, all the stuff happening in Constantinople around 300 is pretty brutal. What led up to the council of Nicaea, and all.

[Clove]

Early Christians were also particularly harsh on the idea of bringing women into the priestly life, and I believe that particular sect was persecuted. This has to do with Paul (memory hazy).Which really odd considering how egalitarian the rest of the world was around 300 AD.

[ElanthianSiren]

I forgot, albeit late: the cathars

[ElanthianSiren]

Which really odd considering how egalitarian the rest of the world was around 300 AD.

totally, puppies and kittens and fair wages and rights for all!

[Apotheosis]

I forgot, albeit late: the cathars

yet the cathar's or "cathari" or, "the pure", were a gnostic sect that was influenced by Manichaeism/Dualism.. among other things, they advocated suicide as a way to "escape" the prison of matter, ie. "that our souls are imprisoned in our bodies".

This dualistic "philosophy" found it's roots in Persian mysticism...

there's some speculation that the Cathars + Knights Templar + Rosicrucians were all related, but the evidence is pretty sketchy.

[Apotheosis]

I confused the rapture with the second coming. I've never understood the big difference between them to be perfectly honest though I'm aware differences exist. They more or less turn into "blah blah blah" when people try to lay them out for me.

it's pretty much the same, except that in the rapture, all the "true believers" are brought to heaven prior to the "final judgement".

also, the rapture/protestant side tends to look at the bible as more of a literal than a symbolic source for prophecy.



Look into the struggle between James and Paul regarding how Christianity should proceed. It's pretty interesting.

right, this is the whole faith vs. works, etc. argument which post-reformation Christians adhere to, ie, the "either/or" dichotomy of the bible vs. the RCC, both/and view of the bible.



Early Christians were also particularly harsh on the idea of bringing women into the priestly life, and I believe that particular sect was persecuted. This has to do with Paul (memory hazy).

This primarily has to do with "adopting the customs of pagans" admonishment.. in other words, it was common for pagan traditions to have female priests.. and well, one view is that by adopting female priesthood, the early Christians would be adopting pagan customs...



St. John Chrysostom advocated shunning and persecution of christians for attending Jewish festivals.

Look into the matter of the Donatists under Augustine.

Look into the matter of the gnostics.


Not too up on St. John Chrysostom, but I would say that Christianity is to Judiasm what the reformation was to Catholicism, and that many "jews" were actually the first converts to Christianity.. not sure if you're trying to imply anti-semitism on St. John's part..

Augustine was a Manichean prior to conversion to the RCC faith.



Finally, with all that study, I'm surprised you've never heard of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre sometime in the late 1500s.


Well, I was adressing the "early" christian "heresy's"... I studied the violence directed at Huguenots (as well as post-reformation violence) in Western Civ.....

All I can respond with is, so what? I wouldn't be surprised how much the state/aristocrats gained in finances, political power, and territorial seizure during all the violence....

[ElanthianSiren]

All I can respond with is, so what? I wouldn't be surprised how much the state/aristocrats gained in finances, political power, and territorial seizure during all the violence....

I wouldn't be either; I'm not quite sure of your point. I said that Christians were very guilty of persecuting each other and implied it's been so through history; someone asked why I'd say such a thing. I listed the reasons why.

What is the so what?

[Apotheosis]

I wouldn't be either; I'm not quite sure of your point. I said that Christians were very guilty of persecuting each other and implied it's been so through history; someone asked why I'd say such a thing. I listed the reasons why.

What is the so what?

I'm not saying or suggesting that you were implying anything, but critics of Christianity often try to use things like the inquisition, or attack of "heretics" as an excuse to attack the principles of Christianity......

I think I was probably making a bigger deal of the history than I needed to, however, after having studied all this "stuff"... I still question what makes one "sect" of Christianity think they know more/better/etc. than another sect of Christianity.... that's my biggest question regarding that faith system....

kind've like the difference between different sects of Islam.

[Warriorbird]

A much better "principles" attack is the Old/New Testament disconnect.

[ElanthianSiren]

I still question what makes one "sect" of Christianity think they know more/better/etc. than another sect of Christianity.... that's my biggest question regarding that faith system....


That is my question of any religion.

[Mabus]

I said that Christians were very guilty of persecuting each other and implied it's been so through history; someone asked why I'd say such a thing. I listed the reasons why.
That someone would be me.

The reason I asked goes back to your original quote:

If you read primary sources, it was semi-common for christians to kill each other as heretics for not remaining "true" to what Jesus really meant. This is particularly true in the times directly following the crucifiction when people thought the rapture was definitely destined for the near future and that their lack of conversion of others to the "true" message of Jesus jepordized their salvation.
(bold my own)

I was trying to find out which "primary sources" dealt with "directly after" the crucifixion that pointed to christian on christian violence as "semi-common" and dealing with the "rapture".

I guess it comes down to definitions:
1) primary sources
2) directly after
3) semi-common
4) rapture

If you could define what you mean by those words and phrases, and then provide the sources, I would live to read them.

[Warriorbird]

You have 30 years of religious scholarship to go along with your degree in the Constitution?

[Mabus]

You have 30 years of religious scholarship to go along with your degree in the Constitution?
Thank you for the fact-filled post. I appreciate the fact that you stayed on topic and did so in a respectful manner.

[ElanthianSiren]

Then you must have missed where Georgie corrected me about the rapture, and I noted that it was a mistake. Anyway, I posted at least one book used to form some of those sentiments. Feel free to grab it.

Directly after, generally means up to about 600AD to me, but yes, that's a relative term, and we've moved this discussion all the way up to 1500, as far as I know.

Or do you want to know what I mean by primary sources? I generally count primary sources as writings considered authentic, so the writings of Augustine, Chrysostom etc. I don't know where to get these online, sorry.

[Mabus]

Then you must have missed where Georgie corrected me about the rapture, and I noted that it was a mistake. Anyway, I posted at least one book used to form some of those sentiments. Feel free to grab it.

Directly after, generally means up to about 600AD to me, but yes, that's a relative term, and we've moved this discussion all the way up to 1500, as far as I know.

Or do you want to know what I mean by primary sources? I generally count primary sources as writings considered authentic, so the writings of Augustine, Chrysostom etc. I don't know where to get these online, sorry.
Thank you for your answer.

My post was before the "rapture" discussion, so I am sure you can see where that was a concern.

I would consider "primary sources" either contemporary historians of the apostles (as you had stated "directly following the crucifiction"(sic)) but would even accept any writings from the New Testament. I do not consider 600 years as "directly following" the crucifixion.

Once Christianity became a "matter of state" there were efforts to codify and homogenize that did include violence and death, but I have read no histories that state this happened "directly following" the crucifixion (using my view of "directly following").

Again, thank you for the answer.

[Apotheosis]

Once Christianity became a "matter of state" there were efforts to codify and homogenize that did include violence and death, but I have read no histories that state this happened "directly following" the crucifixion (using my view of "directly following").



Yeah, that's why i felt it necessary to insert my useless knowledge into the conversation : )

But I still <3 Melissa

:-D

[Warriorbird]

Christians were presumably totally peaceful pre Constantine due to not being in charge, mind.

[radamanthys]

Christians were presumably totally peaceful pre Constantine due to not being in charge, mind.

Can't figure out what ya mean. It might just be late and my brain isn't working right.

[Warriorbird]

Christianty had no Imperial backing till Constantine.