| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2012 06:59:31 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
He seems to practice a very different kind of Christianity from that of the reactionary bigots who so often express themselves in these forums. |
You started out with Alain de Botton's call to avoid ridiculing and demeaning ideological opponents in a debate. It is a good idea. His calm reasoned argument leaves the reader thinking "those guys are reactionary bigots" without his ever resorting to name calling. Follow the path that leads to the higher ground. |
I didn't take "reactionary bigots" as too inflammatory. She could have used terms like hypocritical, or self righteous, or near-sighted, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, - choose your derogatory adjective.
But it is true, in the forums as in politics, name calling gets us no where.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2012 07:23:03 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
On the other hand, sometimes I think one has to cut through all the bullshit and kick some ass. |
...Is this where the following adage comes from:
"Yay thought I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,I fear no evil... For I am the meanest bastard in the valley"
I read this somewhere.
Ray |
lol! No, actually what I meant is sometimes you just have to call out a bigot for what he is, in plain language. To always use nicey-nice language can sometimes obscure the truth and make bigotry more socially acceptable. |
I once heard a story of a Quaker who, having been wronged, told the perpetrator "I trust thy mother will punish thee, when thou hast returned to thine kennel." |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 10:01:51 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I trust thy mother will punish thee, when thou hast returned to thine kennel. |
Insults always sound better in high English. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 11:11:48 AM · #29 |
I learned that religion's so called 'moral leaders' are liars and hypocrites:
//www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/world/europe/in-russia-a-watch-vanishes-up-orthodox-leaders-sleeve.html?_r=3&hp
A religious leader on quite a roll, denouncing gays, abortion, and artistic expression, all while advocating for Christian education in public schools, gets photographed wearing a $30K watch. People notice and point out the hypocrisy of this in light of supposedly Christian teachings. The church then doctors the photos to remove the watch, tries to erase it from history, and the man wearing it denies ever having done so. They even claim that the photo was doctored to ADD the watch.
But wait... some Photoshop moron forgot to doctor the reflection of the watch out of the photo, so even their doctored 'original' image still contains the watch. Oops!
A moral authority caught in an open lie about the disconnect between his actions and supposed beliefs. Slanderous accusations of doctoring on the part of the media, the denigration of other people to protect their image. The irony of disclaiming a $30K watch while sitting in a gold plated room containing gold plated urns while wearing a gold plated hat.
I learn new stuff every day, and it all points in one direction.
Message edited by author 2012-04-07 11:17:41. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 11:15:04 AM · #30 |
| I hope people appreciate the photography tie-in. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 11:24:18 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I hope people appreciate the photography tie-in. |
...I know I did. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 12:47:05 PM · #32 |
I enjoyed this essay coming from England as a counterpoint to some of the sentiment on this thread.
The telegraph
Message edited by scalvert - Fixed link. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 01:59:08 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I enjoyed this essay coming from England as a counterpoint to some of the sentiment on this thread.
The telegraph |
Read it... and I truly do not have the time to go over every item that I do not agree with.
Suffice to say that I cannot even begin to agree with the title of the article since persecution is not at the forefront of the argument.
Ray
|
|
|
|
04/07/2012 03:11:45 PM · #34 |
I found the article from The telegraph sad example of the sort of sloppy thinking that I expect to see more here in the States than in the better British papers.
The underpinnings of the article are two quotes by Margret Thatcher and Ibn Khaldun meant to bolster the argument that "A society that persecutes Christ is heading for terrible trouble".
Ms Thatcher's quote âNot for 2,000 years has it been possible for society to exclude or eliminate Christ from its social or political life without a terrible social or political consequence.â is false on its face, a gross overreach of any supportable fact. 1500 years ago Christianity was a minor cult, and today Christianity is still far from the world's universal religion. Ask the people of Varnasi India ( the world's oldest continually inhabited city) how they have been able to soldier on for five thousand years without accepting Christ. To say that those who fail to follow a christian church are certain to fail is false on its face.
To quote any quote by Ibn Khaldun, an eminent historian of Muslim culture, as proof of the need to accept Christ as lord and savior is foolish.
The Nazi are held up as an example of what happens if a people " repudiated Christianity", yet the German census of May 1939 indicates that 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers.
Then the phrase "In God We trust" on US currency is held to be proof of deep religious faith. How very sad.
When he writes "all prudent leaders have needed the mandate of heaven." and then makes the logical leap that Christ is the only gatekeeper of that mandate. All conquerors have claimed the mandate of heaven, from Hammaburi to Hitler.
The basic tenet that he tries to make, that all successful societies must have some faith at their core, is an interesting one, but one he confabulates with his own faith and botches the result. Then he shoehorns the article into "persecution" of Christ into the headline without using one single example of persecution of Christians, let alone Christ.
Message edited by author 2012-04-07 15:15:30. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 03:55:59 PM · #35 |
It's hard to quote on an iPad, but I'll try to copy a bit from the article. In response to Brennan I would say the Author did temper Thatcher's quote with this passage. "The secularists also do not stop to contemplate Mrs Thatcherâs warning about what happens when people cut Jesus out of the life of society. She was thinking, I suspect, not so much of nations where other faiths predominate, but of that area which people used to called Christendom, now loosely known as âthe Westâ."
The article is not meant to convince the gallery here of a different point of view, but rather just to serve as a contextual counterpoint to the loud, predominating view found here on DPC. I find it even more pertinent to know it came from Europe which many hold up as being much more advanced than their superstition clinging brothers across the Atlantic.
IF there is a point I would endeavor to make to the staunch detractors on this site it would be found in the following passage.
It is believed that universal doctrines of human rights, enforced by the United Nations and by international courts, can settle all the moral stuff necessary to the running of society. All the rest is seen as superstition and bigotry. Despite a bit of bleating from Catholics, God was left out of the Constitution of the European Union. He had a lucky escape, one might think, but nevertheless it is significant that those planning Utopia for our continent felt they could dispense with Him.
At least two things are missed in this God-is-dead political order. One is that it ignores the basis of so many of the ideas it advocates. These ideas are not the result of intellectual virgin births in modern times. They have parentage. They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 04:19:21 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it even more pertinent to know it came from Europe which many hold up as being much more advanced than their superstition clinging brothers across the Atlantic. |
One author does not represent Europe any more than an article by Caesar or Mussolini.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IF there is a point I would endeavor to make to the staunch detractors on this site it would be found in the following passage.
It is believed that universal doctrines of human rights, enforced by the United Nations and by international courts, can settle all the moral stuff necessary to the running of society. All the rest is seen as superstition and bigotry. Despite a bit of bleating from Catholics, God was left out of the Constitution of the European Union. He had a lucky escape, one might think, but nevertheless it is significant that those planning Utopia for our continent felt they could dispense with Him. |
God was left out of the Constitution of the United States, too, and the result was a huge advancement for civil society. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 05:17:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
IF there is a point I would endeavor to make to the staunch detractors on this site it would be found in the following passage.
... Despite a bit of bleating from Catholics, God was left out of the Constitution of the European Union. He had a lucky escape, one might think, but nevertheless it is significant that those planning Utopia for our continent felt they could dispense with Him. |
...and why pray tell would there exist a need for a higher order in the constitution of the Unions. Surely individuals who are free to pursue salvation can do so without support from a political body.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At least two things are missed in this God-is-dead political order. One is that it ignores the basis of so many of the ideas it advocates. These ideas are not the result of intellectual virgin births in modern times. They have parentage. They could not have been conceived without Christian thought about the intrinsic dignity of each human person. |
No one is suggesting that anyone's super being is dead, merely that there is no need for any reference to it in the constitution.
The latter part of the comments reminds me quite a bit of a comment made in some of the DPC forums that atheists are devoid of morals... albeit that in this instance the author suggests that the parentage of the intrinsic dignity of each human person is exclusively the product of a Christian lineage.
It truly makes one wonder if the world would have evolved at all without the advent of Christianity.
Ray
|
|
|
|
04/07/2012 06:35:52 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It truly makes one wonder if the world would have evolved at all without the advent of Christianity.
Ray |
Probably the pertinent question is how would it have evolved without the advent of Christianity.
I don't think the author's point is that we need God in the constitution, but rather to rebut the sentiment that, "(Religion's) good bits, such as loving your neighbour, say people like Richard Dawkins, have nothing intrinsically to do with religion. Its bad bits very much do, and they must be stamped out, or at least relegated to a completely private sphere in which people can mutter their weird incantations only behind closed doors."
I will always be here to counter that argument. Religion, like everything else, deserves a public defender and here on DPC, that lot has fallen to me. And while it is very easy to say, "oh, we would have thought of those things anyway" (speaking of such as the Golden Rule), the truth is Religious thought (note I do not mean exclusively Christian thought) beat secular thought to these conclusions by millenia. The author makes the friendly reminder on whose shoulders you are standing.
Message edited by author 2012-04-07 18:38:45. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 06:59:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It truly makes one wonder if the world would have evolved at all without the advent of Christianity.
Ray |
Probably the pertinent question is how would it have evolved without the advent of Christianity. |
Surely you are aware as to just how condescending this comment is. There are a myriad of people throughout the world who have never had anything to do with Christianity,and yet they too have evolved into caring and loving societies that are the very embodiment of what it is that Christian strive to achieve.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think the author's point is that we need God in the constitution, but rather to rebut the sentiment that, "(Religion's) good bits, such as loving your neighbour, say people like Richard Dawkins, have nothing intrinsically to do with religion. Its bad bits very much do, and they must be stamped out, or at least relegated to a completely private sphere in which people can mutter their weird incantations only behind closed doors." |
I will concede your point, but surely you would admit that such admirable traits are not the exclusive domain of religion. Behaviour such as that you allude to existed in the indigenous peoples of many continents prior to the arrival of Christianity.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author makes the friendly reminder on whose shoulders you are standing. |
Actually, one could argue that the author is ill placed to make such an assertion since his only reference to religion relative to this discourse is that Christianity is the sole source of good conduct and that is something that is demonstrably not true.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 07:10:00 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author makes the friendly reminder on whose shoulders you are standing. |
Had the article been titled "Christian teachings are the underpinnings of western values" or some such, then sure, good point. But he (or more likely his editor) titled it "A society that persecutes Christ is heading for terrible trouble". The notion that Christ is being persecuted is rather odd, since he has passed this veil some time ago. The notion that Christianity itself is under attack is a popular fear among those who like to instill fear in their followers, but the faith is the dominant one in the world and growing. Of course the same fear is used in Arabian countries to keep orthodoxy, critics are attacking religion itself, not just unjust leadership or outdated behaviors. The perception of being under attack is very useful if you want to justify attacking others, you can call it "stand your ground", even if you have to move your ground into the place where you can find conflict.
When we ratchet up the debate into a siege mentality we have forgotten Luke 6:31.
Message edited by author 2012-04-07 19:11:32. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 07:36:47 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It truly makes one wonder if the world would have evolved at all without the advent of Christianity.
Ray |
Probably the pertinent question is how would it have evolved without the advent of Christianity. |
Surely you are aware as to just how condescending this comment is. There are a myriad of people throughout the world who have never had anything to do with Christianity,and yet they too have evolved into caring and loving societies that are the very embodiment of what it is that Christian strive to achieve.
|
THe condescension is your own projection and I didn't mean it that way. It's a legitimate question and one very difficult to answer. What would the universe be like without hydrogen? It's hard to know because the universe is crawling with the stuff. Western civilization, like it or not, has been steeped in Christian thought for 1700 years. It's very difficult to "remove" this influence and discuss what is left. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 07:45:41 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The author makes the friendly reminder on whose shoulders you are standing. |
Had the article been titled "Christian teachings are the underpinnings of western values" or some such, then sure, good point. But he (or more likely his editor) titled it "A society that persecutes Christ is heading for terrible trouble". The notion that Christ is being persecuted is rather odd, since he has passed this veil some time ago. The notion that Christianity itself is under attack is a popular fear among those who like to instill fear in their followers, but the faith is the dominant one in the world and growing. Of course the same fear is used in Arabian countries to keep orthodoxy, critics are attacking religion itself, not just unjust leadership or outdated behaviors. The perception of being under attack is very useful if you want to justify attacking others, you can call it "stand your ground", even if you have to move your ground into the place where you can find conflict.
When we ratchet up the debate into a siege mentality we have forgotten Luke 6:31. |
A reasonable point. I hope you understand that I rarely, if ever, go on the offensive and begin an attack those who have no faith. My response is always a reaction to something already posted. In this case, for example, I waded into this thread because of Mousie. Christianity has been under attack, to some extent, for nearly it's whole existence. Persecution is part of the lifeblood of the faith. It's possible nothing is different these days, but it always feels different to those living in the times. We see people fired for wearing crosses. We see religious articles of faith banned in schools. We hear people like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett. What would you have us do? One must always be on guard that they are not tilting against windmills, but a reasonable man can conclude that the New Atheist is a different creature. Even DPC Rant reveals evidence to support this assertion. The atheist of your generation was disappointed there was no God (but felt rationally compelled to disbelieve in him), the atheist of my generation revels in his death and actively seeks to stamp out the burning coals of adherence. I've never included you in this group, but I hope you understand that I feel justified in my responses. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 08:34:30 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think the author's point is that we need God in the constitution, but rather to rebut the sentiment that, "(Religion's) good bits, such as loving your neighbour, say people like Richard Dawkins, have nothing intrinsically to do with religion. Its bad bits very much do, and they must be stamped out, or at least relegated to a completely private sphere in which people can mutter their weird incantations only behind closed doors."
I will always be here to counter that argument. |
DrAchoo... Champion of the Bad Bits. Defender of Inequality, Injustice and Moral Absurdity. I'm picturing Darth Vader in a burkha. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 08:41:05 PM · #44 |
| Happy Easter Shannon. He is risen indeed. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 09:05:34 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Persecution is part of the lifeblood of the faith. It's possible nothing is different these days, but it always feels different to those living in the times. We see people fired for wearing crosses. We see religious articles of faith banned in schools. |
We see people bullied for their sexual orientation. We see children suspended for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. We see candidates questioned over their faith despite the fact no test of faith is allowed. We see people denied access to health care because of someone else's beliefs. We see Sikhs attacked for wearing a turban. We see Mormons, Catholics and Protestants alike being told that they're not really Christian. We see outrage over construction of a mosque or synagogue. Persecution is indeed part of the lifeblood of the faith, but who is really persecuting whom? Is your faith diminished in any way if you can't wear it on a t-shirt or display a ceramic knick-knack at school? Without those crosses and other visible symbols of religion, you'd lose only the markers for prejudice and be left with treating others not as Catholic, Muslim or atheist, but as fellow human beings. |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 09:09:58 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Happy Easter Shannon. He is risen indeed. |
Happy Easter to you, too! Enjoy those chocolate rabbits, colored eggs, jelly beans, and marshmallow peeps delivered all over the world by a giant invisible bunny that symbolizes the rise of modern dentistry. I know I will. :-) |
|
|
|
04/07/2012 09:15:44 PM · #47 |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 06:22:41 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It truly makes one wonder if the world would have evolved at all without the advent of Christianity.
Ray |
Probably the pertinent question is how would it have evolved without the advent of Christianity. |
Surely you are aware as to just how condescending this comment is. There are a myriad of people throughout the world who have never had anything to do with Christianity,and yet they too have evolved into caring and loving societies that are the very embodiment of what it is that Christian strive to achieve.
|
THe condescension is your own projection and I didn't mean it that way. It's a legitimate question and one very difficult to answer. What would the universe be like without hydrogen? It's hard to know because the universe is crawling with the stuff. Western civilization, like it or not, has been steeped in Christian thought for 1700 years. It's very difficult to "remove" this influence and discuss what is left. |
...and sadly what you seem to not understand is that the very thing you laud was a symbol of oppression to a myriad of peoples who did not share your beliefs.
That too my friend is an influence and something that also ought to be discussed.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-04-08 06:24:35. |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 06:50:55 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
a reasonable man can conclude that the New Atheist is a different creature. Even DPC Rant reveals evidence to support this assertion. The atheist of your generation was disappointed there was no God (but felt rationally compelled to disbelieve in him), the atheist of my generation revels in his death and actively seeks to stamp out the burning coals of adherence. I've never included you in this group, but I hope you understand that I feel justified in my responses. |
...and of course we have empirical evidence at hand to support this generalization.
Could it be that the atheists of today are a lot more vocal than their predecessors and that their claims are striking a nerve.
On a different note, I seriously doubt that the atheists of previous generations were "disappointed" there was no god, but you are free to believe what you want.
Have a Happy Easter.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-04-08 06:51:57. |
|
|
|
04/08/2012 10:10:31 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Probably the pertinent question is how would it have evolved without the advent of Christianity. |
Why is it that you seem to think that Christianity is the only source of moral guidance?
|
|
