Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Mar 2000 21:01:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1809 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> James Brown wrote:
> Also agreed. But in order for X to actually matter, X has to have some
> effect on reality, or it's just ornamentation on a perfectly valid
> theory that explains things without X. In this case, the christian god
> has no effect (in this reality) that is not satisfactorily explained
> without it.
I could argue this further, but we'd be getting away from traceable cause and
effect, and getting really esoteric. (which is to say, getting into questions
like 'Where does the concept of God come from' and 'Does the socio-political
effect of believers in God constitute evidence there-of', and others, but
leaving C&E behind tends to hurt my brain.
> > > > > Christianity as a whole can't be measured by those bigots and those
> > > > > bigots alone. But when a system or moral seems to consistenty produce
> > > > > flawed people who wreak havoc, perhaps we have to ask if that system
> > > > > itself is flawed.
> > > >
> > > > c/Christianity/America
> > > > c/Christianity/Atheism
> > > > c/Christianity/Capitolism
> > >
> > > Go ahead and try to prove that America/Atheism/Capitalism (I shan't
> > > defend Capitol-ism as I think there isn't much good coming from the US
> > > Capitol these days :-) ) consistently produces flawed people. *Produces*
> > > mind you, not just suffers to exist.
> >
> > The incidence of violent crime in America, over the past 200 years. Or is
> > that "suffered to exist"?
>
> I can argue this two ways.
>
> 1. There has always been and will always be some incidence of crime in
> any society in which free will is allowed to exist. Getting rid of all
> crime requires a level of monitoring and a level of incorruptibility
> that cannot be practically achieved. Thus, crime in and of itself is not
> an indictment of a particular societal organization. There is no utopia.
> America is better, overall, than anywhere else (except Hong Kong before
> it was taken over by the ChiComs). I've discussed why in other threads
Ok. Then what you're *really* saying, if I read right, is that christianity
is more flawed than America. At which point, things get mucky very quickly,
because it starts getting necessary to differentiate between the various
motivators of 'flawed people who wreck havok'. Potayto, potahto.
> 2. The onus is on you to show that violent crime is a direct result of
> the characteristics or morals of America.
>
> OK three ways
>
> 3. I don't mean "America" as it exists today, but rather the idealized
> america as envisioned by the founding fathers. We've deviated and need
> to correct. It IS possible to get back there.
>
> Regarding #1, Christianity gets a pass IF you can show that it's a
> better religion than any other and IF you can show that a few bad apples
> are all that christianity produces, and that those bad apples aren't
> really christians.
>
> Regarding #2, I'll remind you that I have shown already why flawed
> people are a direct result of the characteristics or morals of
> Christianity. "I am my brother's keeper" is a flawed moral as it implies
> free goods.
Only by your worldview. Which, I will acknowledge, is the only metric you
have to judge things by. I have not seen "all rights are property rights"
shown to be the best option to my satisfaction. But I'm not asking you to do
it for me, I'll hunt my own facts, and draw my own conclusions.
> Regarding #3, you can't implement a perfect socialist society, as
> socialism just flat out cannot be made to work. It's the areas that are
> NOT socialist that let mixed societies limp along. Again, see other
> threads. And christianity is at root a socialist (and morally flawed
> system)
Any system can be made to work, on any scale, if all the individuals therein
accept it. All -isms have this same stumbling block.
The advantage that Libertarian theory has (IYHO) is that it is better equiped
to deal with individuals who do not accept it.
> > If you insist. I disagree, but that's obvious by now. I think you've got a
> > very flawed idea of christianity, though. What criteria are you using to
> > define christian?
>
> Acceptance of a "loving" god that forgives all regardless of worth, and
> acceptance of the principle of from each according to ability, to each
> according to need (that is "you are your brother's keeper")
Your first principle isn't one I subscribe to, and I don't think is part of
most christian theology. More accurately, a loving God that forgives all who
understand, repent, and atone for wrongdoing.
Your second principle is sort-of accurate, but you are expressing it as an
extreme that I don't think is the practise or the intent of most christian
belief.
I'm not eloquent enough to express it much better than that, but I have had it
explained to me sufficient that I'm happy with it.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
I'm getting paid for this --> alladvantage.com
Sign up via me, the reference $$ go to fund Lugnet.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Skipped most of it but picked on one thing. James Brown wrote: \ (...) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the basis for christianity is flawed. The basis for capitalism, and the basis for America, are not. Christianity will produce (...) (25 years ago, 14-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) Agreed. (...) Also agreed. But in order for X to actually matter, X has to have some effect on reality, or it's just ornamentation on a perfectly valid theory that explains things without X. In this case, the christian god has no effect (in (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
