SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 3123>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Ten Things Xtians Got Horribly Wrong< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
wwwest Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6762
Joined: Dec. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 3:01 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Way too long to quote the essential points, but a list worth reading.  

When Christians get political, they often do so because they believe that they have God on their side. This is true whether they are progressive or conservative, and throughout most of American history there have been both. (You’d think that the conflicting claims about what God wants would lead to more doubting, but here we are.) Looking over the long history of people claiming to be speaking for God’s wishes, it quickly becomes evident that Christians are frequently on the wrong side of history. Here are 10 things that American Christians of the conservative stripe got completely wrong when they were so sure they were speaking on God’s behalf

1) Slavery.

2) Women’s suffrage

3) Evolution.

4) Pain relief for childbirth.

5) Catholics

6) Prohibition

7) Segregation

8) Contraception

9) School prayer

10) Marriage equality


http://www.salon.com/2013....partner


--------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

- John Kenneth Galbraith
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 3:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I think the operative phrase here is "Christians of the conservative stripe". IMO, the problem isn't Christians as such (Quakers, e.g., were central to the abolitionist movement; the fight against segregation was spearheaded by religious leaders; lots of Christians have been fighting for, not against, marriage equality*); the problem is conservatives.

To put it another way, liberal Christians have more in common with liberal non-Christians (atheists, agnostics, Jews, Buddhists, whatever) than with conservative Christians; and conservative Christians have more in common with conservative non-Christians than with liberal Christians.





*Among them my late parents, both United Methodist ministers.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 3
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19487
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 4:51 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Slavery was an interesting one.  During the Civil War people on both sides prayed to the same God and thought they were justified in their actions.

Slavery was also an accepted norm in the civilized world (Rome, Greece, etc. ) up until the late 1700s

Anything that can be interpreted can be gotten wrong.

I think a more interesting question is "Who decides what is right and what is wrong?"  Do we just vote on it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 6:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 12 2013, 1:51 pm)
QUOTE
Slavery was an interesting one.  During the Civil War people on both sides prayed to the same God and thought they were justified in their actions.

Slavery was also an accepted norm in the civilized world (Rome, Greece, etc. ) up until the late 1700s

Anything that can be interpreted can be gotten wrong.

Which is why any ultimately subjective rationale (e.g., citing "god" or "the bible", which amounts to "because I said so") is inherently immoral.

Any moral calculation has to be based in pragmatism or it's worse than useless.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 5
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 6:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Add Quakers and witches to the list
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
orygawn Search for posts by this member.
Sleeping Bag Man!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6034
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 8:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Our morality changes, but our scripture does not.  

Ergo...morality does not come from scripture.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6644
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 12 2013, 9:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Morality is not something handed down to us with a set of instructions etched in stone.

It is the ongoing endeavor of pursuing enlightened self-interest and the common good, guided by compassion and love.

If our hearts and our minds are gifts from God, and/or if they are the product of evolutionary progress over millions of years, our moral compass and the progress of human civilization depend on our capacity to utilize those gifts to the fullest extent.


--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19487
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 12:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I will agree that our sense of morality has changed, but not always for the better.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
tamarac Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1076
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 2:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

When has our sense of morality changed for the worse?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 2:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 9:24 am)
QUOTE
I will agree that our sense of morality has changed, but not always for the better.

According to what standard? The "because I said so" rule?

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 11
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2900
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 3:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(tamarac @ Nov. 13 2013, 1:24 pm)
QUOTE
When has our sense of morality changed for the worse?

Usary might be an interesting candidate...

It is forbidden in Deuteronomy (at least, a Jew is forbidden from collecting interest from a fellow Jew), and was widely prohibited/frowned upon in both Christianity and Islam until roughly the Enlightenment.

With the kind of predatory lending practices that now routinely take place under the shelter of caveat emptor, one could certainly argue that the old way was morally superior.

(And of course there are many who would argue that tolerance of abortion, extra-marital sex, homosexuality, etc, represents a change in morality for the worse.)

But there's no question that morality more typically changes for the better. Slavery is perhaps the best example here--it is broadly condoned in the Bible and was practiced in Judeo-Christian societies (and many other societies) for centuries.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19487
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 3:16 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh no.  I don't know anything.  All I have is my bible.  I'll have to rely on you and your higher moral standards.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
tamarac Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1076
Joined: Jan. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 4:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Absolute moral positions that represent bigotry and discrimination based on ancient books is less moral?

This is the problem. What each individuals morality is based on. Is it based on faith in a belief system or based on humanism? Humanism is tangible, faith is projection.

Someone might not like gay marriage, but why is it moral to outlaw it?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 5:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 12:16 pm)
QUOTE
Oh no.  I don't know anything.  All I have is my bible.  I'll have to rely on you and your higher moral standards.

It isn't that you "don't know anything"; it's that what you "know" (about morality) is purely subjective. And as you yourself pointed out a few comments back, purely subjective standards of morality are different for everyone--making them inherently unreliable ETA or, more to the point, inapplicable beyond the individual.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 15
Lamebeaver Search for posts by this member.
trail? I don't need no stinkin trail!
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 19487
Joined: Aug. 2004
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 5:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Nov. 13 2013, 3:14 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 12:16 pm)
QUOTE
Oh no.  I don't know anything.  All I have is my bible.  I'll have to rely on you and your higher moral standards.

It isn't that you "don't know anything"; it's that what you "know" (about morality) is purely subjective. And as you yourself pointed out a few comments back, purely subjective standards of morality are different for everyone--making them inherently unreliable.

So who gets to decide what's morally right, and morally wrong?

Popular vote?

Does each person have to decide for themselves?

If that's the case, then what one person believes is wrong, could be perfectly OK for someone else.

Are there any absolutes?

If you're going to make a statement that several things are morally wrong, aren't you saying that your opinion carries more weight than that of others?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
hikerjer Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 10986
Joined: Apr. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 13 2013, 10:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(tamarac @ Nov. 13 2013, 2:24 pm)
QUOTE
When has our sense of morality changed for the worse?

Now that, is an interesting question.  No pat answers from me.

--------------
"Too often I have met men who boast only of how many miles they've traveled and not of what they've seen."  -  Louis L'Amour
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
geophagous Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 14 2013, 10:07 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I would say to examine morality look at how it impacts those around you.

Kill someone and that is likely to have a negative impact.

Make someone a slave and again you have a negative impact.

Don't let women or blacks vote and again you have a negative impact.

Let 2 people marry, who are both the same sex......what is that hurting?  Where is the negative impact?

Having sex with someone who is in a relationship, but not with you.  Yes some negative impacts could be seen.  Does it need to have legal force behind it?

So some things it would appear are pretty easy to agree on, others a bit gray and still others SHOULD be easy since they don't hurt, degrade, dehumanize, victimize,  or disenfranchise people it would seem to be a moral choice, EXCEPT some book has told you it is wrong......
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 14 2013, 10:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 2:20 pm)
QUOTE

(TehipiteTom @ Nov. 13 2013, 3:14 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 12:16 pm)
QUOTE
Oh no.  I don't know anything.  All I have is my bible.  I'll have to rely on you and your higher moral standards.

It isn't that you "don't know anything"; it's that what you "know" (about morality) is purely subjective. And as you yourself pointed out a few comments back, purely subjective standards of morality are different for everyone--making them inherently unreliable.

So who gets to decide what's morally right, and morally wrong?

Popular vote?

Does each person have to decide for themselves?

If that's the case, then what one person believes is wrong, could be perfectly OK for someone else.

Are there any absolutes?

This is so muddled that it's hard to respond, but I'll give it a shot.

To answer your first question, in a pluralistic society nobody should get to "decide" what's right and wrong, based on purely subjective standards, for the society as a whole. Jews don't get to decide that eating shellfish is morally wrong for everyone; Muslims don't get to decide that alcohol is morally wrong for everyone; Catholics don't get to decide that using contraceptives is morally wrong for everyone.

(Obviously that doesn't preclude individuals from applying purely subjective standards to their own behavior, or a group of individuals united around some subjective belief from applying subjective standards to its own willing members.)

In a pluralistic society, the only workable approach is for "right" and "wrong" to be negotiated based on pragmatic, consequentialist considerations. People can disagree on what's "right" or "wrong" in any given situation, but as long as all sides are basing their position on pragmatism rather than on some subjective belief, those disagreements can be worked out.

Unfortunately, in practice, even in a pluralistic society there are people who seek to impose their purely subjective moral standards--standards with no basis in observable reality--on believers and non-believers (and people who believe different things altogether) alike. The one thing all reasonable people should be able to agree on is that this behavior is utterly reprehensible and has no legitimate place in a nation like ours.

QUOTE
If you're going to make a statement that several things are morally wrong, aren't you saying that your opinion carries more weight than that of others?

Of course. I would never suggest that all opinions are equal; in fact, I've repeatedly said the opposite.

For example, you say a certain affectional orientation is "wrong" based on nothing at all other than your own irrational prejudice, which you rationalize by citing a particular text that you chose based on entirely subjective beliefs and which you interpret through the lens of your own prejudice. I say homophobia is morally indefensible based on its real-world consequences (e.g, discrimination, anti-gay violence, torn families, teen suicide). Those two opinions are not equally valid.


--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 19
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 15 2013, 11:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Odd.

Usually, people who make such sweeping (and false) generalizations are labelled bigots.  But for some odd reason religious bigotry is accepted, if not encouraged, on this forum.

What's up wth that?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 12:06 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(cweston @ Nov. 13 2013, 3:10 pm)
QUOTE
But there's no question that morality more typically changes for the better.

Really?  No question?  I question (neah, challenge) this assertion.

History is rife with cultures and societies where morality decayed and the culture/society with it.  Indeed that is the consistent theme of much of the old testament, and a good chunk of the new.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7524
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 1:05 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yet it's also rife, Ken, with cultures and countries claiming to pursue some higher moral grounds that led to all kinds of atrocities. The examples you so love to cite of the Nazis and the Soviets are just 2.

I would also suggest that the examples you're (probably) referring to aren't really samples of morality decaying .. morality has never, ever, been a homogenous standard. And people in all cultures, in all countries, have been many different things.

Take the Romans .. it's ridiculous to propose, for example, that the culture decayed morally.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 2:07 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Nov. 16 2013, 1:05 am)
QUOTE
Yet it's also rife, Ken, with cultures and countries claiming to pursue some higher moral grounds that led to all kinds of atrocities. The examples you so love to cite of the Nazis and the Soviets are just 2.

Exactamundo.  The assertion that there is "no question that morality more typically changes for the better" is a crock on its face.  The moral "improvements" brought by the Nazi system and the Soviet system were most certainly NOT "for the better".  

QUOTE
I would also suggest that the examples you're (probably) referring to aren't really samples of morality decaying .. morality has never, ever, been a homogenous standard. And people in all cultures, in all countries, have been many different things.

And as you stated, morality is fluid.  Anciently slavery was an integral part of the economy of many (most?) societies.  So anciently slavery was morally acceptable to those societies.  As economies changed, so did the moral acceptability of slavery.  I like to think that was "for the better", but if economies had not changed (as they did not for centuries anciently) would the abolition of slavery have been "for the better?"  I don't pretend to make that judgment as so many people on this forum so often do.

An inverse example is homosexuality.  Homosexuality was morally acceptable (and even celebrated) in ancient Greece.  The Romans who came later treated homosexuality VERY differently.  Was that "for the better?"   Was the Western European view of homosexuality AFTER the Roman period a "change for the better?"  The early Catholic church readily accepted and even encouraged homosexuals in the clergy and gave them dignity, respectabilty, and a livelihood.  Is the Catholic church's position on homsexuality today "for the better"?

QUOTE
Take the Romans .. it's ridiculous to propose, for example, that the culture decayed morally.
From a Roman moral perspective, their society and culture most certainly did decay morally.   The societal morals/culture that drove the Republic and early Principate and that established the Roman Empire decayed and with it so did the empire.   The Roman morals/culture that established the empire were very different from ours and in many ways would be viewed today as immoral.  But the bottom line is that when those morals decayed, so did the empire.  The spread of Christianity (and its very different morality) during the period of the Roman Principate accelerated that decay.

Morality must be viewed thru the lens of it's time and culture.  It is for example ludicrous to declare George Washinton and Thomas Jefferson as immoral men because they were slave owners.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Walkinman Search for posts by this member.
A rainbow
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7524
Joined: Nov. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 2:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE

(Walkinman @ Nov. 16 2013, 1:05 am)
QUOTE
Yet it's also rife, Ken, with cultures and countries claiming to pursue some higher moral grounds that led to all kinds of atrocities. The examples you so love to cite of the Nazis and the Soviets are just 2.

Exactamundo.  The assertion that there is "no question that morality more typically changes for the better" is a crock on its face.  The moral "improvements" brought by the Nazi system and the Soviet system were most certainly NOT "for the better".  

you say they were not for the better, but then you say  
QUOTE
Morality must be viewed thru the lens of it's time and culture.


You're contradicting yourself .. implying that on one hand it's ludicrous to declare Jefferson immoral, yet flatly suggesting immorality on the part of Nazism or the Communist block. Applying your standard, one WOULD suggest that those systems were moral improvements 'for the better'.



(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
I would also suggest that the examples you're (probably) referring to aren't really samples of morality decaying .. morality has never, ever, been a homogenous standard. And people in all cultures, in all countries, have been many different things.

And as you stated, morality is fluid.  Anciently slavery was an integral part of the economy of many (most?) societies.  So anciently slavery was morally acceptable to those societies.  As economies changed, so did the moral acceptability of slavery.  I like to think that was "for the better", but if economies had not changed (as they did not for centuries anciently) would the abolition of slavery have been "for the better?"  I don't pretend to make that judgment as so many people on this forum so often do.

I feel safe saying that anyone who argues that slavery is not, and was not, immoral is insane. Acceptable? To some people, sure. Just as child porn is acceptable to some people. Or rape is acceptable to some people. That doesn't make it moral, however. An economy that needs/needed salvery to function is/was an immoral economy.


(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE
An inverse example is homosexuality.  Homosexuality was morally acceptable (and even celebrated) in ancient Greece.  The Romans who came later treated homosexuality VERY differently.  Was that "for the better?"   Was the Western European view of homosexuality AFTER the Roman period a "change for the better?"  The early Catholic church readily accepted and even encouraged homosexuals in the clergy and gave them dignity, respectabilty, and a livelihood.  Is the Catholic church's position on homsexuality today "for the better"?

Again, you're conflating morality with merely acceptable or encouraged/discouraged behavior. That doesn't make something moral or immoral. Not if, as Tom has suggested, we use some other form of measurement than a totally whimsical and arbitrary subjective one.



(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Take the Romans .. it's ridiculous to propose, for example, that the culture decayed morally.
From a Roman moral perspective, their society and culture most certainly did decay morally.   The societal morals/culture that drove the Republic and early Principate and that established the Roman Empire decayed and with it so did the empire.   The Roman morals/culture that established the empire were very different from ours and in many ways would be viewed today as immoral.  But the bottom line is that when those morals decayed, so did the empire.  The spread of Christianity (and its very different morality) during the period of the Roman Principate accelerated that decay.

The social morals that built the Roman empire were as immoral as it gets. Ask the people they slaughtered, enslaved and brutalized across 3 continents what they thought about the Romans morality for another perspective.

Further, I think your use of the word 'decayed' is self-fulfilling. Standards change .. and certainly many part of the Roman culture changed . as do all cultures (all things) .. and then they collapse or fold, sooner or later .. but this isn't causation, at all, which you're suggesting it is.

And you're still only looking at the people in power who made powerful choices. They weren't/aren't the keepers of morality any more than Congress is.


(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE
Morality must be viewed thru the lens of it's time and culture.

Wrong.


(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 10:07 pm)
QUOTE
It is for example ludicrous to declare George Washinton and Thomas Jefferson as immoral men because they were slave owners.

Ken - it is not ludicrous at all. because the flip side is also true then, that it's ludicrous to call them moral men merely because they lived according with some set of standards and behaviors that other people defined.

What the entire conversation shows is that morality itself is a ridiculous concept. It doesn't exist. What we can talk about is how what we do impacts other people and other creatures and other things. We can talk about how it impacts ourselves, of course, but that's also no one else's business. But to try to draw up something like sexuality as moral or immoral is ridiculous. Predatory behavior is something very different to that; and I honestly don't understand why so many conservative people such as yourself just don't seem to even want to understand that.

Do you not see that any conversation that conflates slavery and sexuality is absolutely ridiculous? It'd be insulting if it wasn't so pathetically ignorant.


--------------
Guided Alaska backpacking and hiking trips

"What good is a used up world and how can it be worth having?" -- Sting, All This Time.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 24
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5298
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 10:15 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(KenV @ Nov. 15 2013, 11:56 pm)
QUOTE
Odd.

Usually, people who make such sweeping (and false) generalizations are labelled bigots.  But for some odd reason religious bigotry is accepted, if not encouraged, on this forum.

What's up wth that?

The PC police will not allow you to say that Islam drives Muslims to blow up and behead people but you can blame Christianity for all the ills of the civilized world???

This broad brush only seems to work in one stupid direction

People do bad things.....that they might also call themselves Christians means very little


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
TehipiteTom Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5713
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 10:50 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Nov. 16 2013, 7:15 am)
QUOTE
People do bad things.....that they might also call themselves Christians means very little

Agreed. As I said up above, the problem isn't Christians; the problem is "conservatives" (or more properly, reactionaries), whatever their faith (or lack thereof).

--------------
Conservatives are the whiniest whiners in the wholy whiny history of whiny-ass whinerdom.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4655
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 16 2013, 11:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(TehipiteTom @ Nov. 13 2013, 2:58 pm)
QUOTE

(Lamebeaver @ Nov. 13 2013, 9:24 am)
QUOTE
I will agree that our sense of morality has changed, but not always for the better.

According to what standard? The "because I said so" rule?

Christians need to believe that morality is always degenerating. Otherwise their entire narrative no longer seems relevant. Selling Christianity is like selling vacuum cleaners. If there were no dirt, there would be no need for them. So they fabricate "sins" so as to have proof of the need of their product.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
KenV Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7324
Joined: Mar. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 18 2013, 11:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Walkinman @ Nov. 16 2013, 2:42 am)
QUOTE
You're contradicting yourself .. implying that on one hand it's ludicrous to declare Jefferson immoral, yet flatly suggesting immorality on the part of Nazism or the Communist block. Applying your standard, one WOULD suggest that those systems were moral improvements 'for the better'.

You clearly missed the point.

INDIVIDUALS need to be judged against the moral standards prevalent in the time and culture in which they live.

CULTURES/SOCIETIES need to be judged against global and long term moral standards.  Both Naziism and Communism were touted during their first decade or so as being superior both morally and economically.  (Indeed there are more than a few that still shout loudly today that communism/socialism is morally superior to the free market system.)   Only after enough people died and enough economies were destroyed by those systems did the immorality of those systems become evident.  Although both systems were widely sold as being "for the better", the results of both PROVED them to be hugely "for the worse".

However, the morality of most of the individuals living within those systems (the foot soldiers so to speak) need to be judged within the context of the moral systems in which they lived.  In other words many of the moral standards we should use to judge a German, a Soviet, and an American "foot soldier/citizen" are different, just as many of the moral standards we use to judge George Washington vs Barak Obama are different.

QUOTE
I feel safe saying that anyone who argues that slavery is not, and was not, immoral is insane.
You're welcome to that opinion, but you have just declared the vast majority of humans and human cultures prior to the mid to late 19th century "insane".  And that includes your own.   Oddly, leftists routinely make a pretty big deal of being opposed to "judging" others, and here you've just judged billions of people you know less than nothing about.

QUOTE
Again, you're conflating morality with merely acceptable or encouraged/discouraged behavior. That doesn't make something moral or immoral.
It doesn't?  REALLY?  I disagree.  And so does Merriam Webster:

mo·ral·i·ty noun \m&#601;-&#712;ra-l&#601;-t&#275;, mo&#775;-\ : beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.

The fact is, morality is all about you call "merely acceptable or encouraged/discouraged behavior."

And if morality is NOT about "acceptable or encouraged/discouraged behavior" then the clear implication is that morality is absolute.  So who gets to decide those absolute morals?  The king?  The local leader?  The state?  god?

QUOTE
Not if, as Tom has suggested, we use some other form of measurement than a totally whimsical and arbitrary subjective one.
Here's a "whimsical" moral code with only two simple and easy "measurement" standards that has proven to be VERY effective over countless generations and across countless societies and cultures:
1.  Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength.
2.  Love your neighbor as yourself.

Can you make an argument why these two standards are flawed?

QUOTE
Further, I think your use of the word 'decayed' is self-fulfilling. Standards change .. and certainly many part of the Roman culture changed . as do all cultures (all things) .. and then they collapse or fold, sooner or later .. but this isn't causation, at all, which you're suggesting it is.
Suggesting?  You're dead wrong.  I'm making no suggestions.  I'm directly stating that as a culture's standards change, that culture dies.  Sometimes that's a good thing.  Sometimes not.  The culture (and morals) of the Roman Republic changed.  Mostly that was a good thing because as that culture changed, the empire died.   And I believe that was mostly a good thing.  Mostly.  And I'm pleased that Christianity played a significant role in the change in Roman culture and with it, the death of the empire.

Much of the old "southern culture" of the United States has changed.  And as it has changed that culture has died.  I think that's mostly a good thing.  Mostly.

QUOTE
What the entire conversation shows is that morality itself is a ridiculous concept. It doesn't exist.
Really?  So you're arguing long and hard about something that does not even exist?  That's a fascinating piece of logic.  Suffice to say I disagree.  Strongly.  As do countless philosophers spanning countless generations across countless cultures.  I find your position arrogant and this statement the height of hubris seeing as it flies in the face of essentially every himan culture, society and government that has ever existed.

QUOTE
What we can talk about is how what we do impacts other people and other creatures and other things.
In that case I refer you back to my two moral standards I listed above.

QUOTE
Do you not see that any conversation that conflates slavery and sexuality is absolutely ridiculous? It'd be insulting if it wasn't so pathetically ignorant.
Aaaah yes, the final refuge of so many leftists.  The other side is not merely "insane" but "pathetically ignorant".  It's such a simple and all encompassing hand wave to discourse.  And at the same time such a condemning and judgmental declaration.   Talk about contradictory.  Or perhaps more accurately, hypocritical.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
geophagous Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1832
Joined: Apr. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 19 2013, 10:18 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

SO when is owning another person morally right?

When is treating another person as property that you can have killed for no reason at all morally right?

Just think about what slavery means......it means you OWN another person like you would own a cat or dog or car.  Please explain again how that is morally right EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Marmotstew Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 9381
Joined: May 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 19 2013, 10:44 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Organized religion is a business similar to other businesses. They are selling you eternal salvation and it comes with a price. They need a business model and it comes in the form of: gays are evil, drugs are bad, if you work on the holy sabbath we'll stone your ass and witches float.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
cweston Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2900
Joined: Mar. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Nov. 19 2013, 11:02 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Marmotstew @ Nov. 19 2013, 9:44 am)
QUOTE
They need a business model and it comes in the form of: gays are evil, drugs are bad, if you work on the holy sabbath we'll stone your ass and witches float.

You know, a statement which stereotypes to this extent, about just about any group other than religious practitioners, would be very broadly condemned by the consensus of posters here.

Just a thought. Maybe we should consider extending the normal etiquette of the minimal expectations of decency to discussions about religion?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
73 replies since Nov. 12 2013, 3:01 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 3123>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Ten Things Xtians Got Horribly Wrong
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions