In christianity you are more or less being blackmailed to behave, but as a secular person you are moral/good/etc. on your own volition.
Christians aren't blackmailed into being moral. We are moral because we find it is spiritually nurturing. It supports us emotionally and mentally and it gives us purpose.
Honestly, on a day to day basis I imagine our morality probably seems the same; but what happens as decades pass, centuries, millenia s? Religion helps to keep morality centered. Without a religion, as time passes morality would drift so erratically, too erratically. Who knows, tomorrow maybe bestiality will become an acceptable practice as well as televised executions for the sake of entertainment, and suicide. I mean, maybe you haven't noticed, but anything seemingly can be justified these days. I mean pedophiles are impulsively drawn to children, does that mean we should let statutory rape become an acceptable practice? Is it their right if the child consents? Is it the child's right? Maybe not accepting such practices is discriminatory to pedophiles? I don't mean to offend anyone. I mean I know to the gay community feel they should have the freedom to express such impulses. It may seem to be a right, but to religious communities like Christianity your actions don't just affect you, they affect the community at large. Does it seem acceptable in modern times because it is or is it a sign of just how loose our morals have become. To sum it up, morality a slippery slope, and it's the intentions of such communities like Christianity to slow that dissension as much as possible. How long before we manage to justify the examples I put forth. Religion acts as a control helping us to adhere to some standard. I know that such a standard seem rigid to some, but it is necessary. The examples I mentioned might seem far-fetched now, but I'm sure the ideas of a oral sex being an acceptable practice, gay marriage, sex scenes in movies, etc seemed far-fetched a century ago. Religion helps to root your morality so it isn't simply centered on what's popular at that particular period of time and place. I mean if I threw you into Nazi Germany would you think exterminating Jews was an acceptable practice? Be honest.
I don't mean to insult anyone on the board or their sexual preferences.
Also, secular societies like Japan, for instance, have the lowest murder rates in the developed world, whilst the US, being mostly Christian, has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, even when compared with the likes of Britain and France. This isn't even going into the statistics for teenage pregnancies, etc. Also, Britain has allowed Gay marriage, and yet the US hasn't (except for a couple of states).
I believe it's a logical fallacy to infer that because the U.S. is largely Christian and that because it has a high murder rate, that automatically one has to do with the other. Maybe it has to do with other factors like the size of the country, or how we educate our children, etc.
lol, appeal to a majority. Fail. (In other words, a logical fallacy if the first bit comes across as being too simplistic in response. You aren't going to win a debate by resorting to the use of known logical fallacies in order to justify an argument)
It's funny because I just came from the Evolution OR Christianity... Why? thread where someone uses that exact same majority argument to prove their argument against Intelligent Design. Are you saying that the idea of a majority belief in an idea can't infer validity?
No. Collective action is useful, but any collective works because of the actions of individuals.
Inflating collective worth is as much a delusion as inflating self-importance.
I agree actually. Moderating is the key, and guess what; Christianity does teach moderation. That's why laziness is a sin. You make it seem like Christianity doesn't teach people to be independent, but that's furthest from the truth.
It is not love and compassion that are unrealistic, it is how they are treated and implemented.
Christianity tells me to love everyone, even my enemies. It tries to force unnatural emotions and feelings where they are undue.
Satanism, on the other hand, encourages love for those who bring joy to your life, and hatred (or at the very least, dislike) for those who try to rain on your parade.
I consider both flawed ideologies, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Satanism, simply because you can act more naturally within its principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims tell me that I am in a state of sin by the very act of my existence. Satanism and eastern philosophies accept individuals for who they are.
Hatred is a very destructive force. Look at the Nazis, Rwanda, etc. hatred can burn like a raging forest fire. A small spark can become an inferno. Teaching unconditional love is a form of prevention meant to stem the tide of that fire. Based on what you just said you could justify hating anyone. I'm sure the Nazis felt their hatred was justified. Perhaps I should just start hating bisexuals and atheists because they "try to rain on my (your) parade."
Christianity teaches love of one's enemies because hate is sooo easy. The extreme of one emotion is meant to cancel out the other. It prevents our minds from being clouded by the anger that leaves us all emotionally vulnerable.
Are you saying that you don't make mistakes; because implying that you don't sin is suggesting just that? The idea that we are born imperfect is meant to humble us. It reminds us that we aren't God. We are perfect because we were created by God, but we aren't infallible. If we all believed we were perfect we could justify anything. Anything we suggest by the nature of such an argument would be justifiable. There would be no such thing as wrong.
Western philosophy also tries to perform the impossible by taking a detached view and separating the observer from the world being observed.
Completely untrue. Christianity is about love and compassion for one another. The fact that we see God as our "Father" and that we are his "children" is meant to help us to make that personal connection. We learn to see ourselves through others; that's why it's wrong to hate someone else, even your enemies. To hate anyone, even your enemies is like hating yourself. We see ourselves through others. This is why we believe in being altruistic. Christianity, not only is it not detached, but it is far more in tune with the reality around us than you care to admit.
Many of these people are given no choice in their upbringing and have no idea that any valid alternatives exist until Christianity or whathaveyou is firmly ingrained into their perspectives.
In any case, the mob is not always the best judge of what is best. I can think of fewer political systems more wrongheaded and corrupt than that of democracy.
You make it seem as though Christians are so uneducated, which is once again... furthest from the truth. People don't embrace Christianity because their stupid. We see the alternatives, we simply chose Christianity in the end. Why is that so hard to believe?
There have been positive effects, but not because of Christian beliefs or theology in particular. At best Christianity has had a secondary, second-order role in the development of the sciences. Had the world been primarily Muslim or Jewish, or even pagan, there would have been little effect on the state of the technological world as it exists today.
Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion.
Again, Christianity could have been replaced by nearly any other religion, or some other source of authority and legitimacy, and things would have largely gone as they did. None of this was because of Christian principles in particular.
That's completely untrue. Because during that period of time it wasn't any religion that was flourishing, it was Christianity. You imply that people can just rally behind anything, but this isn't true. It was the sacrifices of the christian marters of that time that ultimately inspired the people; the idea that people so strongly believed in something that they refused to deny it. This inspired people to rally behind it. People don't just die for anything. If the principles of Christianity were so weak as you suggest it would have died out long ago, yet it's still here still strong. If just any religion could have replaced it, it would no longer be one of the biggest faith in the world.
Sheep only need taming so that they may be harvested by the lions of society.
The masses exist to support the powerful and exceptional. That does not mean they ought to be abused; no more than one should abuse the crop they sow.
And I imagine your one of these lions because if your not your a sheep. Sheep don't need taming because their already tame and the only sheep who are vulnerable to the lions (unholy beasts) of society are the sheep that stray from the Shepard. The sheep that remain close to the Shepard remain under his protection, and the Goliaths are slain long before they reach the sheep by their own self-destructive nature. Sheep aren't tame because they are weak, they are tame because they are strong and that strength comes from the Shepard (the one true Lion). It is the strength to cloth society, thus protecting them from the element of oblivion. it is the power to heal society from the hatred spewed by unholy lions.
Morality is irrelevant to those who are smarter, stronger, or more creative than the mediocre average. You cannot apply one single standard to all people. That is the delusion of democracy as well as Christianity.
So what are you exactly, politically? See now, that's exactly the kind of philosophy that causes a holocaust.
|
|
Bookmarks