Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 17:09:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> > So Christians, rise to the challenge if you can, otherwise, agree that
> > you can not support your conclusions by using the tools of debate and
> > critical thinking. If we can not use critical thinking and debate to
> > better understand Christianity, then this debate is totally worthless.
>
> Big nitpick here. Also with Lar's reply. Your definition of worth is assumed
> to be towards finding "the correct" belief. However, I find value in other
> aspects of the debate, honestly.
My point is that if the X (which really can be any group - I've just
been picking on Christians because they are the most visible here) say
"Our way is right, and you must not question it, just accept it." (which
is how I read much of what has been said here), then it is
useless/pointless to "debate" because such a statement isn't a debate.
> By my own definitions of morality, I hold that it's fine for Christians to
> go around trying to convert people. HOWEVER, it is wrong of them to believe
> that if I don't accept their conversion, that I'm wrong.
I don't have a problem with attempted conversion so long as:
- If I ask you to shut up, you do (assuming we are discussing in a place
where it is acceptable for me to ask you to shut up - my home, work [for
which my employer has policies, which I suspect would exist regardless
as to whether the law required them].
- You don't try and use government institutions to do so (i.e. schools,
though I would remind everyone that ultimately, government must get out
of the school business - then we don't have to worry about the
government teaching evolution or any other scientific theory, courts,
etc.)
- You don't expect the government to enact laws based on your point of
view which are not supported by critical examination of a universal
rights basis (i.e. laws generally making murder a crime are ok, even
though the basis for them may have derrived from Christian teachings
since I think we can all agree that there is a basic universal right to
life which can not arbitrarily be revoked [we can argue separately about
the death penalty]).
I don't care what X believe, even that X might believe that I am wrong
to hold my belief so long as they respect my belief and do not use the
above mechanisms to "punish" me for my belief, and I in turn feel free
to believe that X are wrong (or at least don't have the right or best
answers).
> > I
> > for one am not going to accept that your "morality" is right without
> > being able to critically examine your assumptions.
I'm not sure if my intent was confused. I am talking about the
Christians assumptions, not Dave's.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Agreed-- once a fundamental level of subjectivity has been reached, no further progress can be made. My only nitpick was in your saying that the debate itself was worthless, which I would argue it isn't, since exposing those fundamental (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Exactly. Which is one thing I'm looking for. Supportable flaws in my reasoning using reasoning, not emotion. I don't care if it's from a Christian or not. My initial post served a few functions. A. To test whether or not the Christian debate (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
