Is christianity offensive

true, but what im saying is that, despite the fact that they may not subscribe to a religion, per se, the fact that the ideas spawned by christianity have been so pervasive that they have become inseperable, to a large extent from what someone might consider good or right independant of them.

heres some examples... in the western world we have laws and a constitution that was written by religious people, and in a time that less secularized than we are today. this was the foundation for not only America, but also much of Europe, and although im not familiar with the Canadian constituition, i would bet that its not wholey dissimilar. In order for someone to be a law abiding citizen in any of these countries where the basic foundation rests on essentially religious tenets, that person follows things that have been influenced by religion.

note: (this is for JD, cause i know hes probably getting irritated by this point) , im not saying that the idea of good or bad, or kindness or being law abiding are specific to any sort of religiosity, or that they cant come from somewhere else, but they are undeniably parts of religious thought, and are, for our purposes here, being considered as such.

okay, now for the other half of my running example. In the Islamic religion there are a few differences from christianity. For instance, the idea of justice is overwhelming. maybe the most pervasive idea in Islam. In christianity, we hear more about forgivness and turning the other cheek and whatnot.

now, in an Islamic society, a person may conduct themseves differently, and still maintain a sense of morality. you might be in for some harsher, or more proportional punishments in the legal system, or something along those lines. the thing here is that in the historical context of centuries of Islamic thought, this is perfectly normal, and no more or no less ethical or moral than our western ideas are to us.

surely anyone can see how context makes a difference. i dont think anyone, dispit me repeating myself time and time again have understood my point.

its not that religion is the source of ethics. its not that religion is the fountain of all morality. it is that religion has a profound effect on our understanding of it, and on our perception of it. and in the western world, the historical pervasivness of chistianity has defined, by and large, our view of whats right and whats wrong.
 
This is precisely why I feel that some laws are unjust, as they hold no real benifit to the smooth function of a civilization, but are products of religion, which through these laws have been forced on people.
 
We've been argueing for quite a long time. I think to get this straightened out, we need to figure out exactly what it is we disagree on.
 
I would say that I do understand the religion. That's why I said what I said because Mormons do believe in Christ, they don't just say it.
 
I think it would be hard to debate whether or not an individual or group "actually" believes in Jesus over an internet forum.
 
Now you're just raving. See, this is what everyone's always complaining about when it comes to "christians". So basically you're saying I'm right in a prescriptive sense, but in a descriptive sense you're right, even though the way the world is isn't actually morally correct... this argument is getting weaker and weaker no matter how many big words you use. And by the way, whether people are thinking "deontology vs consequentialism" when they talk about ethics are not, those topics are most certainly in play. If you're actually going to implicitly accuse people of being hypocritical in calling themselves moral (a thoroughly prescriptive concept) when they're not religious, then try to back it up with a descriptive claim, allow me to laugh my ass off at you.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Let's face it... You know you can't win an ethical debate with DCT OR relativism, so you're trying to tell me that you're being "real world" in your view. Unfortunately for you, "the basis of what the majority of the people believe" does not translate to "ethically right".
 
And by the way, SUPilot and I have had more bitchfests on this site than you and I, that's for damn sure.

Look, you can take one of three paths here.

First, DCT. You'll lose. I promise.

Second, Cultural relativism. You don't even LIKE cultural relativism. I know that. So can I assume this one's out?

Third, empiricism rather than normative claims. In which case, this is all really thin reasoning that ultimately amounts to nothing because it's largely unimportant in a moral sense how things are or have come to be. It basically reduces religion to a series of texts from which we can get ideas, and a better understanding of how we want to look at ethical theories. They neither necessarily define nor contribute in any direct way to those theories.

If the last is the case, you have no business criticizing anyone on those grounds. They're thin ice at best.
 
i still think were talking about different things here. ive never claimed that religion is the genisis or the font form which morality springs forth. i think i made that point in my last post.

so i have no desire to get into DCT. i dont really think i ever advocated it directly or indirectly. did i?

as for the cultral realitivism point... i dont think that its theoretically good, or that truth or morality, or any of these other nice words should bend... otherwise they would certainly cease to be.

what im arguing here is the idea of contextualism, which no one seems to want to talk about. im not talking about whether the essence of truth changes based on your world view or your religious affiliation, or anything like that. the idea that what people perceive as right or wrong stems from the enviornment that they are raised in. no one lives in a vaccum, or is insusceptable to outside influences in forming personal views and biases. included in these views and biases would be that persons, or that cultures idea of whats right or wrong, moral or immoral. this really isnt that complicated at all.

youve taken some political science classes havnt you? certainly this isnt a foreign concept... were not talking essentialism here.

im not trying to debate the nature of truth, or what the definition of morality is, or if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there does it make a sound...

now, again, for the 50th time, you cant live in the western world and not have your view of whats ethical affected by christian ideas. you cant live in the world and not have your line of thought influenced by some nature of religion, which is a phoenomenon that dates back to the neanderthals. its an inseperable part of the human experience. this is the point ive tried, in vain, to get across from the beginning.
 
What you're suggesting makes, for the most part, perfect sense... but while we're talking about colloquial moral belief, people will read your first post, and what will they get? DCT. So if I'm setting up straw men here, it's not to defeat a contextualist argument. It's to ensure that the boundaries of the argument are well established, and that they don't bleed into a discussion of "What makes actions right". It's not contentious that christianity has influenced western culture. That's not a threatening claim at all; I'm pretty sure that no one in their right mind can deny the effects of two thousand years of the presence of a dominant religious ideology. What is a problem for me is the underlying notion that one cannot have an idea about morality without Christian values coming into it, which, I believe, is utterly wrong. I myself manage to keep the two quite separate, and any overlap is a coincidence founded in the fact that christian teachings are indeed in some measure good moral advice. But "coincidental" remains the operative word.

Simply put: It's by no means necessary that secular people, or anyone for that matter, must subscribe to moral beliefs which are inherently tied to a God to rightly consider themselves "moral".
 
it would have saved some time to define the nature of the discussion of the bat, rather than run in different directions, but it seems like its all under control now.
 
What I find offensive about Christianity is the force they come at you with. They try to push on their religion to you, which (mostly in extreme ways) is rediculous compared to what I think real Christians want.

Being Jewish, the worst is Jews For Jesus, it can't get worse than that.
 
nope, christianity isn't offensive, people are offensive.

I find it offensive that some of the assholes that cut into my lane and interrupt in classes with their biased, non intellectual views, insist they're going to heaven and are therefore better people than myself. THAT is offensive. Dirty sheep fuckers.
 
That is exactly it. People are offensive, and it is a problem when a religion is blamed as being offensive, when it is really the person forcing their thoughts on you that is offensive.
 
Theoretically, yes you could have an idea about morality without Christian values, or any religious values for that matter. But in a practical sense, your morals are based on the predominant religion according to where in the world you live. The western world was built on Christian morals, and they will directly or indirectly influence you in some way.

You say that its not contentious that Christianity has influenced western culture, yet you, as a member of western culture (I'm assuming), manage to your own morality seperate from religious values, aside from some coincidental similarities. I wonder how you manage to do this when what influenced you as you were growing, and what shaped your moral code, was the Christian influenced western culture?
 
and in which case morality is arbitrary. man, fond memories of getting myself into that mess with you, eh JD?

im still right though. :P
 
Every moral decision or assertion I make, and every moral decision or assertion I see others make, especially once it's explained (because otherwise I'm just inferring to the best explanation regarding motive), presents itself to me as a set of premises and a conclusion. Any time you see me say that someone is acting in a morally inappropriate manner, I will have a firm justification for it. You take enough ethics, and it's not quite so difficult anymore to remove your own prior biases in favour of pure reason. Granted, some decisions or situations are complex enough that it is hard to tell what the "right action" for that case is, and there are some situations for which it's hard to get a clear positive answer, even when I'm seeing the alternatives clearly... UNLIKE PATTY! Ha, Score one for me... you'll notice Wilkes won't touch DCT with a 10 foot pole, my Francoscandinavian friend... wonder why that might be? But I digress.

Often times people will perform the right action for the wrong reasons, and this too complicates things. But I can, at the very least, eliminate a fair number of decisions and justifications from moral consideration. People in general have a very basic and irrational notion of what ethics are; basically they seem to think that moral rights are what you feel "good" after doing, and wrongs, the opposite. But this is clearly insufficient. That's why we have moral theories. To be able to argue about morals in an abstract, "How ought I to act" sense, rather than a vague contextual idea about cultural background, you need to have a broad knowledge base in the area. There are more than a dozen popular moral theories with arguments for and against each, some weaker, some stronger. Once you have a good sense of what they're about, and can argue for and against them, you can really weigh in on these discussions... because usually when someone makes a moral claim, they have a weak basis for it or none at all. In that sense, yes, most people are heavily influenced by western culture which is in turn heavily influenced by Christianity. There remains the very strong possibility, however, that their ethics are misguided. The bible as a guide to "right ethics" is only useful as a text not unlike Hume's dialogues or Kant's essays, and probably less so, as it provides little direct support for its rules. The concidence of what is ethical and what is prescribed "right" by Christianity is exactly that: coincidental.
 
Basically, philosophy is largely characterized as a useless thing to study... and in a practical sense, it really is. Unless you happen to like being right about things.
 
christianity is the deine path to god and all other religions will burn in hell for all of eternity. escpecially mormonism. they will get it the hardest for pretending to be christian and being so stupid
 
am i only franco scandinavian to you? not that i like to be associated to the USA now and then, but i hail from cali.

and in my defence, i have never taken an ethics class in my life, wilkes is further educated than i, i was young and foolish, had no clue who/what i was up against, did not know DCT or any other appelation of the sort, never engaged in such a discussion, never thought about much of what you said; basically, it was lost from the start, and you did a swell job at luring me in just to smite me down and make a fool out of, something you revelled in im sure. :P.

i have come to see your reasoning, although i can't agree with you just for the hell of it. am i being illogical? yes. and i like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top