Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 07:04am PT
|
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! I guffawed in my coffee. Hope all is well with you. Gonna come to the Valley this fall?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:11am PT
|
Try thinking of this way….
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:47am PT
|
Reckon every 'atheist' is different by individual.
Born Agains, among other Christian sects, on the other hand, have openly and proudly joined forces to discriminate against homosexuals and attack women's rights. That makes them enemies of equality under the law, self determination, and the separation of church and state, three of the most fundamental tenets of American civil rights.
All individuals choose their morals. Regardless of where you choose to believe morality hails from, your free will affords you the right to choose your actions. Actions are the true measure of one's morals. One's belief in their source is an internal decision - relevant only to you. In this way there is no difference between Christians, atheists, or anyone else.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:42am PT
|
Gonna come to the Valley this fall?
That's the plan. Hope to see you!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:47am PT
|
All individuals choose their morals. Regardless of where you choose to believe morality hails from, your free will affords you the right to choose your actions. Actions are the true measure of one's morals. One's belief in their source is an internal decision - relevant only to you. In this way there is no difference between Christians, atheists, or anyone else.
There is a huge difference between choosing your actions and choosing your morals. People are motivated to act for all sorts of different reasons than their "chosen" morality!
And, even if your statements were exactly correct in every respect, they are quite uninteresting because THE question is not whether or not people choose to live moral lives. THE question is whether or not moral objectivism is true. And your statements don't touch that question.
And, even if people "choose their morals," the only interesting question about that fact is if their choice can be incorrect. Were Hitler's choices of morals incorrect?
You talk like a relativist. If you are, you are not just on ethical thin ice; you've fallen into the ice water.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:57am PT
|
All individuals choose their morals
Just as studies have shown that the vast majority of people embrace similar,
if not the same, political views as their parents I strongly suspect the
same holds true for their moral views. Free will? I see increasingly
fewer people exhibiting anything close to free will unless, of course, they
really want to act stoopid.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 10:06am PT
|
What goes on inside your head is neither visible nor relevant to anyone else. All the rest of the world can see is your actions - and you choose them. If you communicate your thoughts to others in any way - that constitutes an action.
Many Christians choose to become high centered on the source of others morals - after all, they are trained to judge others in such a manner by their theology, which legitimizes such thinking, but a moral act is a moral act, regardless of who commits it.
Thus, many Christians believe individuals are saved or damned by their beliefs, not actions. After all, forgiveness for anything is a central of Christianity, therefore actions really don't matter in the end. One can always repent - God is always there to mop up the mess in the end.
Put another way, many Christians believe that an unbeliever is damned regardless of the morality of their actions.
The fundamental flaw here, of course, is causality. The rest of the world can only experience one's actions, not the beliefs that drive them (unless they are communicated to others - which constitutes action), nor the perceived sources of those beliefs (ditto). Many Christians deny this reality because it de-legitimizes (appropriately) the most fundamental tenet of their faith - belief = salvation.
In the end, however, there is only action.
Such a disconnect among some Christians provides fertile ground for cognitive dissonance. "Ours is a religion of love" becomes consistent with "I actively work to pass laws for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike, that disallow millions of Americans to marry the person they love".
Thus, Christianity is morally flawed in several important ways. It assigns responsibility for one's immoral actions (ex; bigotry) to an external source (God). It is inherently exclusive (Saved v Damned), and therefore legitimizes such bigotry. And it rewards belief (in God), not moral action (Ex: morally acting unbelievers are still damned).
There's really no saving Christianity in any moral sense until these fundamental flaws are reformed.
The aforementioned example of Hitler (chuckling over here) only illustrates the points above - like those Christians who have killed doctors and blown up clinics, his actions were immoral, regardless of his beliefs or psychological condition.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:10am PT
|
Such a disconnect among some Christians provides fertile ground for cognitive dissonance. "Ours is a religion of love" becomes consistent with "I actively work to pass laws for everyone, Christians and non-Christians alike, that disallow millions of Americans to marry the person they love".
Absolutely correct, particularly because you said "some Christians." The replacement of "educate" with "legislate" in mainstream Christianity has done more damage than can be calculated!
Thus, Christianity is morally flawed in several important ways. It assigns responsibility for one's immoral actions (ex; bigotry) to an external source (God).
Uhh... no! I have no idea how you derive that claim from any others you have made, much less substantiated.
Sure, there are morally irresponsible Christians, just as among any other demographic you care to shake a stick at. However, "Christianity" is not responsible for that fact. There is nothing inherent in Christianity itself to encourage or perpetrate bigotry or to assign personal responsibility for one's actions to God.
It is inherently exclusive (Saved v Damned), and therefore legitimizes such bigotry.
Uhh... again, no! You conflate a metaphysical claim with an epistemological one!
Yes, Christianity teaches that there is a metaphysical fact of the matter regarding one's ultimate "outcome." However, that does not imply or even suggest that any HUMAN is fit to judge what that state is for another human being! HUMANS live in a very deep epistemic hole! And that is why the fundamental principle is true, as summed up in the verse: Judge not that ye be not judged.
Again, there are Christians that don't realize how deep of a hole they really are in, so they ignore the plain teachings of Christianity and do JUDGE! But this is not "Christianity," as you say.
So, no, "Christianity" does not "legitimize bigotry!"
And it rewards belief (in God), not moral action (Ex: morally acting unbelievers are still damned).
I find it troubling whenever people paint with such large brush strokes as you, and thereby brush away "Christianity" with a few misplaced strokes. I don't know who told you what "Christianity" is, but, my friend, you have it entirely wrong!
I would have to literally preach you a sermon about grace to explain this, and nobody here would tolerate it. But I will sum up by saying that the Bible does not teach "cheap grace" (like a "believer" can do whatever crap they want and still call it "saved"), nor does it teach that morally-acting unbelievers are necessarily damned.
Again, I'll agree that some "Christians" are so deeply confused that they convey a completely wrong message. But that does not absolve YOU of the responsibility for sorting through the chaff before you make sweeping claims and then reject an entire world-view on such a basis. Critical thinking means taking MUCH more responsibility for how you process evidence than that!
There's really no saving Christianity in any moral sense until these fundamental flaws are reformed.
Well, again, you are committing the fallacy of composition. "Christianity" doesn't need saving. What needs saving is the subset of professed Christians who are profoundly confused and thereby muddying the waters with THEIR bigotry!
If you imagine that Christianity will EVER be "saved" in the sense you are talking about, I would say that you have crafted for yourself a very convenient excuse. As the famous parable says, "The wheat and the tares [weeds] grow up together until the harvest."
And HOW "reformed" would it need to be for you to be satisfied? Would you expect there to be not one single confused and over-zealous Christian? What proportion would count as "good enough"?
Rather than to take sweeping and inaccurate stabs at "Christianity" itself, and thereby conveniently "absolve" yourself of any responsibility to study what it actually says and means, why don't you instead recognize that Christianity is filled with PEOPLE, and people are really screwed up?
It is certainly my goal to "take shots" at mainstream Christianity on the same points you are raising. I agree that too many "Christians" are deeply confused and need to be reeducated! But I'm not using the confusion of a subset to bash on "Christianity" as it is in itself.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:18am PT
|
Pure obfuscation.
If you choose to subscribe to a theology that separates Saved from Damned based on whether people share your personal belief in God, you accept, embrace, promote, and approve of that form of judgement, regardless of how you choose to externalize it and thus absolve yourself.
Those of us who abhor such an Us v Them philosophy choose to reject theologies that promote them.
We're all responsible for our beliefs and the actions they inform, whether we acknowledge that responsibility or not.
My 'claims' are not sweeping. They are backed by copious data.
Gay marriage bans were passed in nearly every state and at the federal level, mostly during the 90s. Christians provided the lion;s share of the support for those campaigns. In the 2012 election, $40 Million (100% Christian donations) was used to fight marital equality in 4 states, including my own. A failed effort, fortunately.
Look, that data here is overwhelming and damning (LOL) here if you bother to look for it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:30am PT
|
If you choose to subscribe to a theology that separates Saved from Damned based on whether people share your personal belief in God, you accept, embrace, promote, and approve of that form of judgement, regardless of how you choose to externalize it and thus absolve yourself.
Now you obfuscate on the idea of "judgment."
You yourself would agree that some actions are morally reprehensible, worthy of punishment, and so forth. So YOU also "judge". You yourself have an "us/them" mentality when it comes to a whole range of moral divisions.
For example, you would certainly hold to an us/them division regarding Nazis vs. us! You DO hold to an us/them division regarding "us" and "all those nasty Christians that so oppose gays and abortion."
In short, we ALL, yourself included, "judge" and separate into "us/them" divisions.
You don't like the division Christianity makes? Tough. It is what it is in that respect. That doesn't make Christianity "bad" or "wrong" or anything else like that. It only makes is rest on a division that you personally don't happen to like. Oh well. Big deal.
But don't even TRY to claim that Christianity is "bad" just because it divides and "judges." You yourself do the same thing, and you did it in the very post I'm quoting from.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:33am PT
|
Immoral acts warrant judgement by the State: your oft mentioned nazi (lulz!) genocide, for example.
Personal beliefs in a deity, or not, do not warrant judgement of any kind by any entity. That is a personal choice, nothing more.
Hence, my objection to Christian doctrine, which holds that such personal beliefs warrant eternal punishment.
This distinction isn't clear to you yet?
I do claim, correctly, that the human misery Christianity levies on homosexual Christians and non-Christians alike by preventing them from forming loving families is immoral and reprehensible on its face. One only need to mentally turn the tables - if 90% of the population were homosexual, and heterosexual marriage was banned, to understand exactly why this is so.
As far as your 'tough' comment - well, I don't have to accept Christianity's inherently immoral acts, and i don't. I actively oppose them with my efforts, affiliations, and donations - with a great deal of recent success with regards to marriage bans, I'm happy to say, both in my home state, at the federal level, and in other states.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Uhh... no! I have no idea how you derive that claim from any others you have made, much less substantiated.
Sure, there are morally irresponsible Christians, just as among any other demographic you care to shake a stick at. However, "Christianity" is not responsible for that fact. There is nothing inherent in Christianity itself to encourage or perpetrate bigotry or to assign personal responsibility for one's actions to God.
"God told me to do it"
How do you know?
"God speaks directly to me, every day"
This is not nutters, this is what mainstream believers say.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:41am PT
|
Hence, my objection to Christian doctrine, which holds that such personal beliefs warrant eternal punishment.
Hmm... weren't you the guy that was just arguing that personal beliefs come out in actions, which is how we can know what people believe?
Maybe I was wrong, and I'm confusing you with W.K. Clifford. lol
Anyway, again you are simply and flat-out wrong about what Christianity teaches. It does NOT teach that you are saved or lost on the basis of "personal beliefs," UNLESS what you mean by that is that you are saved or lost based upon the ACTIONS that spring out of your beliefs.
Read the entire book of James (it's not that long) before you spew with such nonsense!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:47am PT
|
"God told me to do it"
That should only be a problem for YOU if "God" is telling them to do something immoral. THEN such people would be "nutters," such as the guy who shot up a McDonalds because his dog told him to do it.
Christians that do immoral things, regardless of their perceptions, are wrong, just as is anybody else doing immoral things.
I agree that attempting to absolve oneself of bad behavior by claiming "God told me to do it" is outlandish.
However, don't single out "mainstream Christians" for special condemnation in that regard. PEOPLE find endless excuses and justifications for their bad behaviors... I'm sure yourself included.
You don't like the "God talks to me" idea, but that's only because you have already decided that there is not God that could do the talking. However, clearly it is NOT "nutty" to believe in God, as that would make virtually all of humankind through history "nutty," and the "nuttiness" would include many highly-educated people in all academic disciplines even today.
It's pretty ironic that you would sweepingly label huge swaths of human beings "nutty" on the mere basis that you disagree with what they themselves perceive! Talk about an us/them mentality!
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:50am PT
|
The Born Again's God is immoral for the aforementioned reasons, which is why I choose to believe he's nothing more than a human invention.
That belief in myth is nutty is another question. That was never my argument. Clearly, we have evolved with the propensity for belief in myth, considering the popularity of same - our brains are wired for it by evolution, so no mental illness is required for such belief. There are some excellent evolutionary theories to explain the survival benefits of this proclivity.
I can say that belief in God would be too nutty for me to contemplate seriously at this point in my life. I did believe in God as a child, but once I began to truly think for myself, that went by the wayside pretty quickly.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:55am PT
|
"God speaks directly to me, every day"
Stupid atheists and Americans.
God speaks every day to ALL living entities continually without stop.
Stupid atheists never have any clue WTF they're silly mental speculations are giving themselves.
God tells the atheist all day long he doesn't exist because the atheist is too stupid to understand and wants to forget God.
You want to deny God? Then he'll give you the intelligence to forget him and deny he even exists.
Just like stupid people who don't understand some one and then hate him.
That someone will avoid you but still they're always still there just as the sun always shines whether day or night on earth.
Not even a leaf can move without God moving it first .......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 11:59am PT
|
The Born Again's God is immoral for the aforementioned reasons
None of which you've actually established.
You've stated mere opinions, and you've acted like they reflect objective facts. But they do not.
You're welcome to your opinion. You're even welcome to state it as if it reflects fact.
I'm welcome to simply point out that you haven't substantiated your opinions yet. And you do paint with very, very broad strokes regarding "beliefs" and "theology" that you have not actually studied.
HAVE you read the book of James? Let's see what you think of your "personal beliefs theology" opinion after reading that.
Can't be bothered?
Oh, then you're not entitled to spew without having it called for what it is.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
|
Between all the nazis and the spewing, things are getting pretty messy in here.
If you have specific corrections to my statements with regards to Christian doctrine (please quote them for accuracy), I'd love to here them.
So far...not much in that category.
Not much that actually countered what I stated, that is. Plenty of Hitler references, though, so there's that. Lots of conflation of beliefs with actions and other illogical responses, it seems. Seasoned with swastikas, as you do.
I have a clear view of the basics of the Christian doctrine that seeks to discriminate against homosexuals and unbelievers. It is, at its fundamental level, pretty simple, after all.
It would be cool to address Christian opposition to marital equality directly. So far - all dodge, all the time there. Go ahead, sell it to me.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
|
If you have specific corrections to my statements with regards to Christian doctrine (please quote them for accuracy), I'd love to here them.
So far...not much in that category.
Hmmm... let's see....
* Christianity is a bigoted theology because it has an us/them basis.
Check. Incorrect and shown to be so.
* Christianity is a theology that assigns personal responsibility for individual action to God.
Check. Incorrect and shown to be so.
* Christianity is a theology that condemns or "saves" people entirely on the basis of their personal beliefs.
Check. Incorrect and shown to be so.
Need I go on? I'm happy to! You have spouted off with all sorts of garbage about "Christianity" that I've shown is incorrect.
Hey, read the book of James yet???
Not much that actually countered what I stated, that is. Plenty of Hitler references, though, so there's that.
Ohh... see above.
"Plenty of Hitler references"? Like, let me see... two. And both carefully used to show how ridiculous relativistic morality really is.
What? We're not allowed to use the most perfect example of what relativism really is? Sorry, but I'm not so constrained. Moral relativism is an utterly bankrupt currency and should be shown as such.
I have a clear view of the basics of the Christian doctrine that seeks to discriminate against homosexuals and unbelievers.
Oh, you have a "clear view" in your own mind. Sadly, you continue to conflate the practices of a subset of "Christians" with "Christian doctrine."
As long as you continue to do that, your thinking is NOT clear, no matter how it might seem to you. Christian doctrine does NOT "discriminate" against homosexuals and unbelievers.
It is, at its fundamental level, pretty simple, after all.
I agree. Sadly, however, you have oversimplified the issues via conflation. "Christianity" is NOT "Christians." And what it really teaches is NOT what some subset of "believers" happen to believe. When you can distinguish between the two, you will immediately stop painting with such broad strokes.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 12:22pm PT
|
With zero countering statements, you've shown nothing here.
Nothing about the salient issue: marital equality.
Total, and unfortunately typical, dodge.
I've never had a Christian confront the marital issue - other than to say 'blame God'.
I'm not talking about Unitarians, here. I'm talking about Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.
You can talk about moral relativism or absolutism all you want, but in the end, you choose your beliefs, whatever 'ism' you label them with.
It's clear this isn't gonna happen, so never mind.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!