| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/26/2010 07:32:23 PM · #751 |
| People here might be interested in this week's episode of Soundprint: Children and God. Catch it on an NPR station or stream online. |
|
|
|
11/27/2010 12:17:30 AM · #752 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
People here might be interested in this week's episode of Soundprint: Children and God. Catch it on an NPR station or stream online. |
I'll have to listen to it, but I find problems with the following from the into:
Originally posted by The Site:
The three major monotheistic religions operate from the assumption that: We have the truth, we have a privileged position, we are above others who do not believe as we do, and we are against others who do not believe as we do. |
We have a privileged position? We are above others who do not believe as we do? We are against others who do not believe as we do? As Christians, I don't think we're above or against non-believers. If anything, we're servants and below non-believers. |
|
|
|
11/27/2010 08:14:51 AM · #753 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
We have a privileged position? We are above others who do not believe as we do? We are against others who do not believe as we do? As Christians, I don't think we're above or against non-believers. If anything, we're servants and below non-believers. |
Unfortunately, all too many of your brethren convey exactly that message to those of us outside the faith.....
|
|
|
|
11/27/2010 09:05:50 AM · #754 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
People here might be interested in this week's episode of Soundprint: Children and God. Catch it on an NPR station or stream online. |
I'll have to listen to it, but I find problems with the following from the into:
Originally posted by The Site:
The three major monotheistic religions operate from the assumption that: We have the truth, we have a privileged position, we are above others who do not believe as we do, and we are against others who do not believe as we do. |
We have a privileged position? We are above others who do not believe as we do? We are against others who do not believe as we do? As Christians, I don't think we're above or against non-believers. If anything, we're servants and below non-believers. |
You should have kept reading...it would seem that the author is indicating that this type of mindset is the root cause of the problem, and as  NikonJebhas already stated, a great number of Christian do convey that very message.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-11-27 09:06:54. |
|
|
|
11/27/2010 02:33:34 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
You should have kept reading...it would seem that the author is indicating that this type of mindset is the root cause of the problem, and as NikonJebhas already stated, a great number of Christian do convey that very message.
Ray |
A great number of Americans convey a certain message as well, but is that what America stands for? ;) |
|
|
|
11/27/2010 04:59:53 PM · #756 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
You should have kept reading...it would seem that the author is indicating that this type of mindset is the root cause of the problem, and as NikonJebhas already stated, a great number of Christian do convey that very message.
Ray |
A great number of Americans convey a certain message as well, but is that what America stands for? ;) |
I have no doubts about that Doc, but the response in this instance is in direct reference to the following comment made by  Nullix
"I don't think we're above or against non-believers".
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-11-27 17:13:36. |
|
|
|
11/28/2010 10:50:06 PM · #757 |
Okay Doc, I got a question for you. As a Catholic, this is just disturbing, but maybe it's the norm for other Christian denominations.
We shop at a local Christian store and they send out little catalogs. I saw this item and it threw me.
Originally posted by On the cup:
This cup is the new covenant in my blood... |
This has got to be real, but the new covenant of Christ is in a disposable cup? Is this standard? Maybe I'm so used to drinking from the same chalice at a Catholic mass. I can't believe having the blood of Jesus in a dixie cup. |
|
|
|
11/29/2010 12:13:54 AM · #758 |
Ya, it's standard. We use them at our church all the time. But don't worry, it's not even wine. It's usually grape juice (probably something to thank the southern baptists for).
The funny thing is, the first time I went to a Lutheran church and everybody took from the same cup at the front, I was sorta creeped out. Germs and all. :)
I hear what you are saying though. I can see how it seems to cheapen communion through pragmatics. |
|
|
|
11/29/2010 05:20:48 AM · #759 |
...well it does eliminate the possible transmission of disease so it can't be all bad.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/29/2010 10:35:36 AM · #760 |
Thanks for going to the trouble of writing on this DrAchoo. Since you asked originally, I’ll take the time to post a longish response.
In terms of a critique of your opinion, it is important to read BR’s piece in context. He argues in a number of ways that belief in Christian god is irrational and that common arguments for it are ill-founded. He goes on to question the character of Christ (his teaching (i) is not novel; (ii) sets an unrealistically high standard that no-one can comply with; (iii) is not in practice followed) and points to the apparent belief that the second coming was imminent (both as an explanation and criticism of the teaching).
This section argues goes one further step and challenges the modern assessment of Jesus’ character. I would summarise some of the key points BR makes as below.
o. Bible texts indicate that Jesus’s character was that of a vindictive and furious preacher against those who would not listen to him - contrary to popular perceptions. In this sense, his character appears to be closer to that of a modern religious fanatic than a wise, kind and considered teacher.
o. Jesus teaches eternal punishment for sinfulness. This doctrine is one of cruelty. The cruelty has become manifest for generations in many ways – and Jesus should be held partly responsible for that.
o. The beliefs in eternal punishment for sin have been responsible for unspeakable volumes of misery and self-recrimination. This is particularly cruel given that the threshold for sinfulness is unrealistic.
o. As a secondary argument, given that he is supposed to have been omnipotent, he chose some unnecessarily cruel ways to demonstrate his power.
A conclusion may be drawn that Jesus was not as wise or as virtuous as people perceive him to have been. Other people in the ancient arena appear to have been more wise (e.g. Socrates) and more virtuous (e.g. Buddha).
I’m not sure that your conclusion really addresses the points. You conclude that BR has failed in Buddha and Socrates to deliver up better moral alternatives – but I don’t think that he was trying to find factual examples of people who are objectively “better” than Jesus (should such a thing be possible). You have fallen into the trap of arguing the validity of his examples, rather than challenging the principle.
Inasmuch as you do challenge the principles (Jesus may have been right to be a vindictive and furious preacher – the end justifies the means), I think that this is a weak argument. The means justifying an end was never something that he advocated. Among other things; (1) the bible often advocates behaviour that is form over substance – so form is important; and (2) achieving a short term goal through example setting at the expense of the long term message would seem to be short sighted (though it does reinforce BR’s argument on Jesus’ short termism) – Jesus does not come across as an omniscient visionary.
I also think weak your assertion that the absence of ultimate justice is as disagreeable as the Christian concept of it. The idea that “justice” will be meted out by an invisible and unknowable being according to some vague rules that require heavy interpretation and subjective analysis, against a context of many thousands of competing mythologies and with no further precedent or guidelines to assist is horrific in all senses of the modern concept of justice. To add insult to injury, the stakes are set at the eternal damnation and torture of your soul...
The atrocities meted out by the very worst human civilisations with the lowest regard to human rights and in flagrant disregard of the basic principles of justice are nothing compared to the Christian judgement methodology. The idea that you live, and then you die and no longer function (with no further consequences), is pretty tame by comparison.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2010 01:00:34 PM · #761 |
Thanks for the reply Matthew. I'll chew on what you say and give you a response. Clearly this is one section in BR's larger work, but I didn't set out to address his whole thesis so I'll leave aside that criticism. His articles are presentable as independent ideas and can be criticized on those grounds. The crux of his argument in "The Moral Question" does not fundamentally change if you view it through or beside another of his sections.
BTW, I'll add that this is, to me, the way a Rant thread should function when discussing such topics. The civility is appreciated.
Message edited by author 2010-11-29 13:02:42. |
|
|
|
11/30/2010 10:27:12 PM · #762 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Thanks for going to the trouble of writing on this DrAchoo. Since you asked originally, I’ll take the time to post a longish response.
In terms of a critique of your opinion, it is important to read BR’s piece in context. He argues in a number of ways that belief in Christian god is irrational and that common arguments for it are ill-founded. He goes on to question the character of Christ (his teaching (i) is not novel; (ii) sets an unrealistically high standard that no-one can comply with; (iii) is not in practice followed) and points to the apparent belief that the second coming was imminent (both as an explanation and criticism of the teaching).
This section argues goes one further step and challenges the modern assessment of Jesus’ character. I would summarise some of the key points BR makes as below.
o. Bible texts indicate that Jesus’s character was that of a vindictive and furious preacher against those who would not listen to him - contrary to popular perceptions. In this sense, his character appears to be closer to that of a modern religious fanatic than a wise, kind and considered teacher.
o. Jesus teaches eternal punishment for sinfulness. This doctrine is one of cruelty. The cruelty has become manifest for generations in many ways – and Jesus should be held partly responsible for that.
o. The beliefs in eternal punishment for sin have been responsible for unspeakable volumes of misery and self-recrimination. This is particularly cruel given that the threshold for sinfulness is unrealistic.
o. As a secondary argument, given that he is supposed to have been omnipotent, he chose some unnecessarily cruel ways to demonstrate his power.
A conclusion may be drawn that Jesus was not as wise or as virtuous as people perceive him to have been. Other people in the ancient arena appear to have been more wise (e.g. Socrates) and more virtuous (e.g. Buddha).
I’m not sure that your conclusion really addresses the points. You conclude that BR has failed in Buddha and Socrates to deliver up better moral alternatives – but I don’t think that he was trying to find factual examples of people who are objectively “better” than Jesus (should such a thing be possible). You have fallen into the trap of arguing the validity of his examples, rather than challenging the principle. |
I think your summary of BR’s point in this section is fair and I would agree it reflects his thoughts.
I do believe I addressed these issues. As I mentioned, I cannot just blow off BR’s opinion. If he wants to think poorly of Christ, he’s entitled. I can only show others than his opinion was based on him being uninformed. BR’s argument is that the principle of hell is unacceptable and this, I assume, is part of the reasoning he would consider Buddha and Socrates to be superior. He doesn’t really bother to give any positive claims about Buddha and Socrates so I can only assume his preference for them is because they do NOT exhibit the traits he finds distasteful in Jesus. However, as shown, both believed in the principle of eternal or nearly eternal punishment for evil.
I only touched briefly on the idea that Jesus is better described as a religious fanatic, but I think this assessment amounts to tunnel vision. Jesus did get angry with the religious elite of the time (although the number of episodes where he really goes after them is limited to probably less than three or four). However, Jesus was at the same time kind and considerate to the least appreciated members of society. One cannot discount this and BR doesn’t seem to give it any weight. This lack of balance is, in my opinion, an error and would lead him or another reader of like mind to wonder why anybody sees something positive in Christ. The reality is they do because they see Jesus in a much bigger picture than concentrating on his relationship between himself and the Pharisees.
Originally posted by matthew:
Inasmuch as you do challenge the principles (Jesus may have been right to be a vindictive and furious preacher – the end justifies the means), I think that this is a weak argument. The means justifying an end was never something that he advocated. Among other things; (1) the bible often advocates behaviour that is form over substance – so form is important; and (2) achieving a short term goal through example setting at the expense of the long term message would seem to be short sighted (though it does reinforce BR’s argument on Jesus’ short termism) – Jesus does not come across as an omniscient visionary. |
I’m going to have to get more information from you here, because I think you may have a completely incorrect view of Christianity and Jesus’ teachings. Read the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). If that doesn’t preach substance over form, I don’t know what does. His “seven woes” (Matthew 23 or Luke 11) which BR’s quotes in brief accuses the Pharisees of exactly what you complain about; that they are more concerned with the ritual and appearance than the substance of their actions.
Originally posted by Matthew:
I also think weak your assertion that the absence of ultimate justice is as disagreeable as the Christian concept of it. The idea that “justice” will be meted out by an invisible and unknowable being according to some vague rules that require heavy interpretation and subjective analysis, against a context of many thousands of competing mythologies and with no further precedent or guidelines to assist is horrific in all senses of the modern concept of justice. To add insult to injury, the stakes are set at the eternal damnation and torture of your soul...
The atrocities meted out by the very worst human civilisations with the lowest regard to human rights and in flagrant disregard of the basic principles of justice are nothing compared to the Christian judgement methodology. The idea that you live, and then you die and no longer function (with no further consequences), is pretty tame by comparison. |
Yet on the flip side, the idea that those who profit from the suffering of their fellow humans will never be brought to justice is likewise horrific. I'm not whitewashing hell. It's brutal stuff. But at the same time humanity has always longed to know that accounts will ultimately be settled. Just as BR is entitled to his opinion (and you, yours) I am entitled to think this as well. This is especially true when you consider hell within the entire Christian cosmology which also includes grace and mercy.
Message edited by author 2010-11-30 22:29:27. |
|
|
|
12/01/2010 12:13:04 AM · #763 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Buddha and Socrates... believed in the principle of eternal or nearly eternal punishment for evil... |
As I tried to illuminate in an older post, Buddha would view Avici in the context of Karma, the law of cause and effect.
The idea of punishment is not at all compatible with a thought and practice rooted in compassion.
Let's also remember, that Buddha was only a man, not a god or a wrath.
Exhibit: What should you do when you meet the Buddha? -Kill him!
|
|
|
|
12/01/2010 01:06:48 AM · #764 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Buddha and Socrates... believed in the principle of eternal or nearly eternal punishment for evil... |
As I tried to illuminate in an older post, Buddha would view Avici in the context of Karma, the law of cause and effect.
The idea of punishment is not at all compatible with a thought and practice rooted in compassion.
Let's also remember, that Buddha was only a man, not a god or a wrath.
Exhibit: What should you do when you meet the Buddha? -Kill him! |
I understand the difference ZZ. In Buddhism there isn't any supreme being punishing you, but yet there are consequences for your actions. The pain and suffering will not feel very different whether you think there is someone doing it to you. Either system has the transgressor suffering. I'm using the word "punishment" in a more general way and you will note that the Buddhist text uses the same word (at least it's translated that way) at the very end.
Message edited by author 2010-12-01 01:07:52. |
|
|
|
12/01/2010 12:39:05 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I understand the difference ZZ. In Buddhism there isn't any supreme being punishing you, but yet there are consequences for your actions. The pain and suffering will not feel very different whether you think there is someone doing it to you. Either system has the transgressor suffering. I'm using the word "punishment" in a more general way and you will note that the Buddhist text uses the same word (at least it's translated that way) at the very end. |
Yes, I suppose life/nature has us suffering. The reason we experience suffering, according to Buddhism, is that we permit ourselves to succumb to delusions: attachment, anger and ignorance. We engage in actions that cause pain to ourselves and others. We can suffer the effects of past actions (those that occurred before birth), a phenomenon that rationalizes the apparent injustice experienced by those not physically accountable for their cause (a point that came up earlier in this thread which I did not address).
|
|
|
|
12/01/2010 07:45:34 PM · #766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think your summary of BR’s point in this section is fair and I would agree it reflects his thoughts.
I do believe I addressed these issues. As I mentioned, I cannot just blow off BR’s opinion. |
But you are missing the point. Pointing to shortcomings in the teachings of Buddha or Socrates does not overcome the fact that Jesus appears to have shortcomings.
BR's point here focusses on shortcomings in Jesus' philosophy: he is less kind and wise than people perceive him to be. Other people are similarly or perhaps more kindly and wise. He is not the best of men, and faith based on claims that he is, are misguided.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, Jesus was at the same time kind and considerate to the least appreciated members of society. One cannot discount this and BR doesn’t seem to give it any weight. This lack of balance is, in my opinion, an error and would lead him or another reader of like mind to wonder why anybody sees something positive in Christ. |
I think that this is covered in other parts of the essay. In the preceding passages, BR makes very clear that he thinks that Jesus preached many things that are admirable. I think that it is fair to say that you are agreed on the virtue of many of the things that Jesus said - although BR's assessment is that they are unrealistic and in practice ignored by most Christians. He further supposes that this is because Jesus appears to have expected the day of judgment to have been imminent.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by matthew:
... The means justifying an end was never something that [Jesus] advocated. |
I’m going to have to get more information from you here, because I think you may have a completely incorrect view of Christianity and Jesus’ teachings. Read the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7). If that doesn’t preach substance over form, I don’t know what does. His “seven woes” (Matthew 23 or Luke 11) which BR’s quotes in brief accuses the Pharisees of exactly what you complain about; that they are more concerned with the ritual and appearance than the substance of their actions. |
We're talking at cross purposes. I said Jesus did not preach that the ends justify the means. You read it as though I had referenced preaching substance over form.
Just to recap, You said that Jesus was fair to be vindictive if that had the effect of saving more souls regardless of the process. I disagree - I don't think that this kind of thinking is generally promoted by Christianity. For example, in Christianity, you don't get to murder a doctor who offers assisted suicide in order to stop the suicide and eternal damnation of the suicidal-to-be - the rule prohibits murder without exceptions like this.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I also think weak your assertion that the absence of ultimate justice is as disagreeable as the Christian concept of it. The idea that “justice” will be meted out by an invisible and unknowable being according to some vague rules that require heavy interpretation and subjective analysis, against a context of many thousands of competing mythologies and with no further precedent or guidelines to assist is horrific in all senses of the modern concept of justice. To add insult to injury, the stakes are set at the eternal damnation and torture of your soul...
The atrocities meted out by the very worst human civilisations with the lowest regard to human rights and in flagrant disregard of the basic principles of justice are nothing compared to the Christian judgement methodology. The idea that you live, and then you die and no longer function (with no further consequences), is pretty tame by comparison. |
Yet on the flip side, the idea that those who profit from the suffering of their fellow humans will never be brought to justice is likewise horrific. I'm not whitewashing hell. It's brutal stuff. But at the same time humanity has always longed to know that accounts will ultimately be settled. Just as BR is entitled to his opinion (and you, yours) I am entitled to think this as well. This is especially true when you consider hell within the entire Christian cosmology which also includes grace and mercy. |
I think that you are on very weak ground.
Let's just be clear. The modern concept of justice requires among other things that the law is publicised, clear and precise, that the judicial function and process is clear, objective and comprehensible, that the penalty is proportionate to the crime, a presumption of innocence and that there is a high burden of proof. This is part of the social contract between state and individual.
Christianity starts with a presumption of guilt (original sin). There are a multitude of ways in which people presume that redemption may be earned - but the variety of them belies the fact that there is no clarity or certainty in the rules or their application. Many of the rules are impossible to live up to, necessitating a belief in "grace and mercy" as you put it - but note that by their nature these must be subjectively appplied (and are therefore unpredictable). The penalty system has no element of proportionality - you either receive the maximum penalty (hell) or the maximum reward (heaven). All of this presumes that Christianity of the thousands of competing belief systems (for which there is equally little evidence) is in fact the right system and in the first place.
Moreover, predominant flavours of Christianity accept the concept of deathbed conversion for criminals but condemn the great and the good and those who did not have the opportunity to encounter Christianity before they died. Buddha will go to hell and Dahmer will go to heaven. As you say, Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"the idea that those who profit from the suffering of their fellow humans will never be brought to justice is likewise horrific" |
To summarise, Christian law (no guarantee that it is the right one) applies subjective and unpredictable tests to determine compliance with unclear and imprecise rules, applied by an unknown and invisible ruler, presumes guilt, applies no proportionality in its sentencing, condemns the unknowing innocent and rewards the deathbed convert regardless of their lifetime guilt.
Christian "justice" is almost the precise opposite of modern justice in every sense.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2010 08:11:49 PM · #767 |
Some random reflections. I'm going off the top of my head here, so hopefully I don't bog us down:
I get your point about justice. I wonder if it means anything that you include the term "modern" in front of "justice". Have we, as humanity, somehow stumbled upon the real definition of justice in the last generation when all previous thinkers had it wrong? While our society agrees with some of the terms you lay out, why is this necessarily a better definition (which is probably an epistemological question)? We can quibble over the nuance, but in an atheist system, ultimately, there is NO justice (only what we can make ourselves). While this may sit fine with those in power, it's ashes in the mouths of the neglected.
I also understand your point that showing the shortcomings of Buddha and Socrates don't overcome the shortcomings of Jesus, but I wasn't the one that made the comparisons (BR did). He chose to come out and say that he felt Buddha and Socrates were wiser and more vituous than Christ. The problem with his argument is that either he is very nebulous about it (in other words he doesn't back his statement up at all) or he makes arguments that I have shown to be incorrect. Buddha isn't better than Christ because he doesn't believe in eternal punishment (he does, more or less). Socrates isn't better than Christ because he would support Christ's "vindictive" (BR's term, not mine) attitude toward the Pharisees. I don't know where else to go with that.
To speak of substance over form I think that Christianity is a very flexible code (which is probably why it has survived so nicely for 2000 years). Jesus was trying to get away from ritual good and into effective good so the Christian moral code is summarized into very general terms ("Love your neighbor as yourself") rather than very specific ones (never murder anybody). Your arguments about impracticality and hypocrisy are beyond the portion of BR's argument I spoke to and so would need to be entertained on their own. Certainly I find that hypocrisy is about the worst measure of an idea. If we used that measure we would never be able to hold onto any code as hypocrisy and human nature are virtually synonymous. We all fail to practice our own codes whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, or some cobbled together code of an atheist. A code is probably best measured by its message and not its adherents. |
|
|
|
12/01/2010 09:26:32 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... We can quibble over the nuance, but in an atheist system, ultimately, there is NO justice (only what we can make ourselves). While this may sit fine with those in power, it's ashes in the mouths of the neglected. |
Surely you are not suggesting that atheist are devoid of a sense of justice, and that justice is absent when there is no God?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... A code is probably best measured by its message and not its adherents. |
Considering that there exist similarities in mores, morals, standards, beliefs and practices amongst the varying groups, would it not follow that no one entity has cornered the market in this regard, and that religion is but one element that drives humans to respect each other.
Ray
Message edited by author 2010-12-01 21:28:40. |
|
|
|
12/01/2010 10:28:16 PM · #769 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... We can quibble over the nuance, but in an atheist system, ultimately, there is NO justice (only what we can make ourselves). While this may sit fine with those in power, it's ashes in the mouths of the neglected. |
Surely you are not suggesting that atheist are devoid of a sense of justice, and that justice is absent when there is no God?
|
I suggest exactly what I said. Justice would only be a human construct, no? And its existence in the world would only be a product of how well (or poorly) we were able to manifest it. |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 01:33:23 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I get your point about justice. I wonder if it means anything that you include the term "modern" in front of "justice". Have we, as humanity, somehow stumbled upon the real definition of justice in the last generation when all previous thinkers had it wrong? While our society agrees with some of the terms you lay out, why is this necessarily a better definition (which is probably an epistemological question)? |
Well there are lots of philosophies about just process. These have generally evolved over the years and many of the modern principles were developed in the age of enlightenment and later. The concept of "due process" (i.e. access to justice in the legal system) is generally credited to the Magna Carter (1215 CE and still in force) but was not really developed until the 17th C.
I don't think that one could say that we are gradually uncovering one true philosophy that has always existed - but we are establishing and becoming capable of implementing more sophisticated policies that better complement the modern age.
In the ancient era, the tools required to deploy and enforce a modern and predictable legal system did not exist. Very few societies had sufficient resources to support a large administrative ruling body, administrative acts were very much more arduous, and enforcement relied much more heavily upon military force. Accordingly, the legal system was more simple and relied upon and a high degree of individual, local and subjective interpretation and application.
This is both reflected in, and a consequence of, the leadership structure: kings and emperors were often rulers (often through divine right). Justice was meted out according to more simple laws and natural justice. This was considered normal and acceptable because it was common practice and it was effective at the time.
The bible reflects that 2,000 year old judgement system. Nowadays we can do better.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We can quibble over the nuance, but in an atheist system, ultimately, there is NO justice (only what we can make ourselves). While this may sit fine with those in power, it's ashes in the mouths of the neglected. |
Most of the western world has a predominantly non-religious justice system. Are you suggesting that we'd be better off with something that is more religiously oriented?
Would you really want to be tried for criminal matters in a religious court by bishops based on compliance with religious doctrine? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that we're trying to stop in Afghanistan as being inhumane?
How exactly does Christianity teach us about justice, when every sin may be forgiven a believer and every "good" act will be forgotten for an infidel?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also understand your point that showing the shortcomings of Buddha and Socrates don't overcome the shortcomings of Jesus, but I wasn't the one that made the comparisons (BR did). He chose to come out and say that he felt Buddha and Socrates were wiser and more vituous than Christ. The problem with his argument is that either he is very nebulous about it (in other words he doesn't back his statement up at all) or he makes arguments that I have shown to be incorrect. Buddha isn't better than Christ because he doesn't believe in eternal punishment (he does, more or less). Socrates isn't better than Christ because he would support Christ's "vindictive" (BR's term, not mine) attitude toward the Pharisees. I don't know where else to go with that. |
I agree with you that the examples are open to subjective assessment. It is a subjective assessment as to whether Christ was or was not the wisest and best of men. BR gives the examples of Buddha and Socrates as being more wise in his opinion based on Buddha's kharmic proposition over a binary heaven/hell proposition and the way that Socrates conducted his debates without an appeal to emotion.
However, I presume that you acknowledge that Jesus can reasonably be seen as imperfect by comparison to others in some respects?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To speak of substance over form I think that Christianity is a very flexible code (which is probably why it has survived so nicely for 2000 years). Jesus was trying to get away from ritual good and into effective good so the Christian moral code is summarized into very general terms ("Love your neighbor as yourself") rather than very specific ones (never murder anybody). |
I agree that the terms are very general and the ways in which they can be interpreted to interoperate is almost limitless.
You are latching onto my secondary comment re: substance and form, rather than my main comment that in the bible the ends don't justify the means (as you initially suggested). It is a bit of a distraction, but I was thinking of mostly OT rules (don't eat pork, don't have homosexual sex etc) plus a few NT ones (don't speak against the holy ghost) which are clearly form over substance. The bible is full of these rules - and my point was that there is no clear permission to ride roughshod over these rules in order to achieve a bigger aim.
I stand by my disagreement with you when you say that Jesus may have been justified in his imperfect actions if they ultimately achieved the desired result.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your arguments about impracticality and hypocrisy are beyond the portion of BR's argument I spoke to and so would need to be entertained on their own. Certainly I find that hypocrisy is about the worst measure of an idea. If we used that measure we would never be able to hold onto any code as hypocrisy and human nature are virtually synonymous. We all fail to practice our own codes whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, or some cobbled together code of an atheist. A code is probably best measured by its message and not its adherents. |
I know it is outside the section you commented upon, but that's the danger of not reading in context: the arguments do interrelate.
I think that it is a fair comment to say that most religious codes are aspirational and unachievable. The interesting part is your comment that everyone fails to practice their codes including "some cobbled together code of an atheist". The difference is of course that the atheistic code impacts quality of life, whereas breach of a religious code impacts quality of afterlife. The atheistic "code" is effectively the one that is enshrined by law - i.e. one that is realistic.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2010 02:29:52 PM · #771 |
We're probably starting to confuse the concept of legal justice and Justice (capitalized to denote a difference). Legal justice has checks and balances etc because humans are imperfect in their implementation, but if we assume God is in control of some universal Justice, then there is no need for that. Would we need some appeals process for divine judgement? To think so is to not understand moral concepts such as Justice within a deist system. First, we believe God is perfect so the idea that he may miscarry Justice is nonsensical. Second, Justice is not a concept separate and above God in which case God could act unjustly. Justice (and morality at large) emanate from God. He is their originator. I think this concept is foreign enough to the modern atheist thinker that they often forget it. When we say "God is good" we do not mean "God acts in a way consistent with good" we mean "God's actions are good by definition". When we say "God is Just" we are indicating that Justice comes from God.
On a more practical level, I would vigorously disagree with you that religious moral systems only affect the afterlife (dare I say, "vindictively" disagree with you? :)). The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. Even if I knew Jesus was a hoax, I would consider adhering to the lifestyle because I find it to be beneficial. |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 05:51:53 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. |
Looking at this from a purely secular context one must conclude that its proliferation and thus survival was largely the result of conquering armies than the merits of its code.
Message edited by author 2010-12-02 17:56:39.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2010 05:58:55 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. |
Looking at this from a purely secular context one must conclude that its proliferation and thus survival was largely the result of conquering armies than the merits of its code. |
I would have to completely, utterly and irrevocably reject this statement. Oh, and I disagree with it too... ;) |
|
|
|
12/02/2010 06:43:55 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. |
Looking at this from a purely secular context one must conclude that its proliferation and thus survival was largely the result of conquering armies than the merits of its code. |
I would have to completely, utterly and irrevocably reject this statement. Oh, and I disagree with it too... ;) |
Of course you would. All that military power and conquests were just coincidental. Btw, I meant to comment on the happiness part but I forgot. I can certainly see how a Christian life or any religious life might lead to happiness because it removes the believer's biggest fears, real or imagined, but that's also true of total ignorance. I'm assuming the reason you don't actively live by the latter is because just being happy isn't enough.
Message edited by author 2010-12-02 18:46:41.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2010 06:51:11 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The "Christian life" is one that leads to happiness. Even if we were to look at it in a purely secular context we can see that this is likely to be true as it's a code that's survived for 2000 years with little change at root. |
We can just as easily put forward that it has survived because it is virus-like: it inoculates itself against facts via the invention of faith, it (historically) attacks other dogma as poisonous anathema, and it reproduces at an astonishing rate with the help of the first two conditions. The happiness or well-being of its adherents has little to do with its success. |
|
