Is Christianity Evil?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2017, 01:48 PM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 01:41 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:  I meant your average mortal

Like I said, duck and cover.

[Image: hfxKdN.gif]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2017, 01:56 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2017 02:06 PM by big green mouth.)
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 12:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-05-2017 09:20 AM)big green mouth Wrote:  [...] I'm investing a lot in Haidt's particular framework, but I think he's right when he points out these five themes as being core to morality. These are all values which promote the well-being of the group. In a sense, they are hard-wired altruisms, and I don't think that's a bad thing simply because it takes priority away from more self-centered values.

I think you don't see it as an either or proposition because you don't think in terms of principles. You said you are a subjectivist after all. [...] But what could you possible have to disagree with if you are a subjectivist as you say? You don't think there are any objective principles in the first place so why take issue with my view of Christianity? There seems to be a breach between your thinking and your actions.

I explained my moral viewpoint in the quoted text in this post. You might say that I'm a modified subjectivist in the sense that I think that moral themes emerge in our thinking as a product of an evolved psychology, reflected in a subconscious origin of moral impulses and percepts. We don't choose what we consider moral in the same sense that we may form other preferences. The themes which our moral opinions take are part of an evolved response, and cultural adjustment based upon that evolved psychology only provides superficial adjustment to what we consider moral questions. The differences due to subjectivity occur within a larger framework laid down by issues which matter to our functioning within a group; they are socially loaded instincts.

(22-05-2017 12:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Isn't considered good by whom? I certainly consider it good. Look, if you don't care about preserving your life then why do you even need a moral code? Do you understand that it's only in the context of life that morality has any meaning? Life is what makes morality necessary in the first place. Rocks don't need it. Seashells on the beach don't need it and neither do cars. These things don't face the alternative that biological organisms do. So if you don't consider preserving your own life as a moral activity, then you ignore the metaphysical basis of morality and you commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. [...]

I doubt that's true. In what way am I guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept? It sounds more likely that you're taking an 'is' and without foundation turning it into an 'ought'. It is good in the sense of being useful or valuable to me that my life continue, but in my understanding, it does not have the same nature as a moral good. The two are different and I doubt that most people would agree that continuing living is a morally tinged imperative. The fact that it is a common condition among living organisms is not sufficient in and of itself to make it a moral preoccupation. That the subject be alive is necessary for it to be a moral theme, but not sufficient. I had hoped to tease out of you what you consider the foundation of morals to be in that other thread, but didn't. What do you consider the basis of moral opinions in man?

(22-05-2017 12:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  [...] You don't consider preserving your own life as moral but I'm guessing you'd consider preserving the life of others as moral or maybe not?

As noted elsewhere, I make a distinction between those acts which it is our duty to either perform or refrain from, and those acts for which it would simply be virtuous of me to do so, but for which I have no moral duty to perform. Saving my own life is neither virtuous, nor a moral duty. Saving someone else's life is certainly virtuous, but it is not a duty. I harm none by not rushing into a burning building to save an infant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2017, 03:02 PM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 12:55 PM)sea_tiger Wrote:  I remember a priest's sermon about uniqueness of Christian teaching-'forgiveness'.He said that it cannot be found in other religions but only in christianity.
He gave an example of a family who devoted their life to spread gospel.The people who hated them burned the father and his son alive.The wife was the only survivor.When interviewed she said that she forgives the people who brought such cruelty on her husband and son.
That teaching is ignorance at best and deliberate dishonesty at worst.

One of the names of Allah in Islam for example, is "the Forgiver" and it's not hard to find examples like this one of Islamic teachers encouraging people to emulate Allah in this regard.

Buddhism, for another example, is no stranger to teaching forgiveness, for example see here. In fact I would say that the teaching on forgiveness in that link is quite a bit more profound than the teaching of Christianity on the subject. Christianity commands you to forgive, and you do so out of obligation or, quite possibly, fear of the consequences if you don't. Buddhism, much more usefully, teaches you how not to take offenses personally, so that you don't even HAVE to forgive.

Christianity is great at claiming to be the inventor and protector of things that were there before it came along. More of that "lying for Jesus".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
22-05-2017, 03:51 PM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 12:45 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(22-05-2017 12:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Look, if you don't care about preserving your life then why do you even need a moral code?
If one does not consider personal survival to have 100% primacy in 100% of situations, that's not even remotely the same thing as not caring about preserving one's life at all.

In most contexts I care more about my own survival than that of others. If I had an opportunity to take a bullet for my wife, on the other hand, I'd do it instinctively. At less of an all-or-nothing level, if I were called to public service in some capacity and was somehow uniquely able, willing and/or qualified to answer the call, I might well do so despite not being personally that interested or not having sought it out for myself.

We make choices for the greater good (which you disparage as altruism) all the time. Sometimes it is based on empathy for others, sometimes on empathy for ourselves, and sometimes, on empathy for our future selves (e.g., making myself uncomfortable by exercising or eating foods other than the ones I'd prefer, in the belief that my future self will be healthier in the long run). Sometimes it's based on a mixture of all those things.

By your logic, any willingness on my part to go on a diet means I don't care about enjoying food.

I was going all the way back to the beginning of knowledge of morality in order to show the foundation and to validate the principle that one must act in one's self interest. I was not laying out an entire moral code. I was simply validating my view that Christianity is anti-life because of the basic principles it endorses. It's called conceptual reduction. See, I don't believe that one should make assertions without backing them up. My purpose was to show that the principle of self-sacrifice is incompatible with the principle of self-sustaining action. That I've done.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 02:22 AM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 12:45 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(22-05-2017 12:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Look, if you don't care about preserving your life then why do you even need a moral code?
If one does not consider personal survival to have 100% primacy in 100% of situations, that's not even remotely the same thing as not caring about preserving one's life at all.

In most contexts I care more about my own survival than that of others. If I had an opportunity to take a bullet for my wife, on the other hand, I'd do it instinctively. At less of an all-or-nothing level, if I were called to public service in some capacity and was somehow uniquely able, willing and/or qualified to answer the call, I might well do so despite not being personally that interested or not having sought it out for myself.

We make choices for the greater good (which you disparage as altruism) all the time. Sometimes it is based on empathy for others, sometimes on empathy for ourselves, and sometimes, on empathy for our future selves (e.g., making myself uncomfortable by exercising or eating foods other than the ones I'd prefer, in the belief that my future self will be healthier in the long run). Sometimes it's based on a mixture of all those things.

By your logic, any willingness on my part to go on a diet means I don't care about enjoying food.

If you have empathy for others or you do things for your own future, then it would not be selflessness because without a self, you couldn't feel empathy for anyone and doing for your future would be self-interested.

I don't make choices for the greater good. I don't even know what you mean by that. Typically I've found that what people mean by the "greater good" is the good of anyone other than one's self. But why should the good of others be more important than one's own good. I've never gotten a rational answer to that question, it's always either because god says so or others say so.

And none of what you say here reconciles the fundamental contradiction between self-interested action, which life requires whether one likes it or not and self-sacrifice, which if practiced fully leads to death. There's no contradiction between 100% self-interested action and helping others, being kind to others unless ones holds that it can't be in anyone's interest to help others.

I hold that all Human interactions should be win/win. This is the moral code of life. Altruism or self-sacrifice calls for lose/ win relationships and that is why I consider it evil, i.e., anti-life.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2017, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 02:42 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(22-05-2017 01:56 PM)big green mouth Wrote:  I doubt that's true. In what way am I guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept? It sounds more likely that you're taking an 'is' and without foundation turning it into an 'ought'. It is good in the sense of being useful or valuable to me that my life continue, but in my understanding, it does not have the same nature as a moral good. The two are different and I doubt that most people would agree that continuing living is a morally tinged imperative. The fact that it is a common condition among living organisms is not sufficient in and of itself to make it a moral preoccupation. That the subject be alive is necessary for it to be a moral theme, but not sufficient. I had hoped to tease out of you what you consider the foundation of morals to be in that other thread, but didn't. What do you consider the basis of moral opinions in man?

I was very explicit in that other thread that I consider the basis of morality to be man's nature as a living organism and the requirements for life that his nature demands if he wants to live. It is the conditional nature of man's life that is the basis of morality. Morality simply has no meaning outside of this context. As I've said a rock doesn't need morality, because its existence isn't conditional.

While others may have moral "opinions", my morality is based in facts, is fully integrated with the primacy of existence, and is validated by reason, therefore it is objective.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
23-05-2017, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 10:22 AM by mordant.)
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(23-05-2017 02:22 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(22-05-2017 12:45 PM)mordant Wrote:  If one does not consider personal survival to have 100% primacy in 100% of situations, that's not even remotely the same thing as not caring about preserving one's life at all.

In most contexts I care more about my own survival than that of others. If I had an opportunity to take a bullet for my wife, on the other hand, I'd do it instinctively. At less of an all-or-nothing level, if I were called to public service in some capacity and was somehow uniquely able, willing and/or qualified to answer the call, I might well do so despite not being personally that interested or not having sought it out for myself.

We make choices for the greater good (which you disparage as altruism) all the time. Sometimes it is based on empathy for others, sometimes on empathy for ourselves, and sometimes, on empathy for our future selves (e.g., making myself uncomfortable by exercising or eating foods other than the ones I'd prefer, in the belief that my future self will be healthier in the long run). Sometimes it's based on a mixture of all those things.

By your logic, any willingness on my part to go on a diet means I don't care about enjoying food.

If you have empathy for others or you do things for your own future, then it would not be selflessness because without a self, you couldn't feel empathy for anyone and doing for your future would be self-interested.
It's true that empathy requires (among other things) a self so that you can (among other things) discern others as separate from yourself and empathize with them by extrapolating from your own feelings and needs. But when you talk about things like "self preservation is a moral goal" it seems to me that most people's understanding of that statement would not include acts that might cause or allow or risk deferring or foregoing one's own prerogatives, or even permitting one's own dissolution. Most people in my experience see as setting aside the primacy of self in certain contexts. It seems in fact as if you are opposed to anything that would promote the survival of others at your own expense, as a morally bad thing. Perhaps that is not your intent?
(23-05-2017 02:22 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I don't make choices for the greater good. I don't even know what you mean by that. Typically I've found that what people mean by the "greater good" is the good of anyone other than one's self. But why should the good of others be more important than one's own good. I've never gotten a rational answer to that question, it's always either because god says so or others say so.
Oh, I think you know very well what people mean by "the greater good", you simply don't want to admit it as a rational concept. The greater good is simply the recognition that sometimes you or your interests are less important in the short run than one or more others, or put another way, life isn't all about you. It is, indirectly, in your rational self interest to give up some of your rights in some situations for the preservation of the rights of others. A low-level example is that I might choose to volunteer to comfort the dying or clothe the indigent for no pay, because it's in my rational self-interest to do things that I believe promote the sort of civil, empathetic, non-shaming, non-authoritarian, non-judging, non-punishing society that I would prefer to live in. It still relates to my self-interest, but in the same meta-fashion that it's in my self-interest to eat the sort of uninspiring foods and pass up the sort of inspiring ones (by my tastes) such that I can eat uncompelling meals but eventually be rewarded with better health and energy levels.
(23-05-2017 02:22 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And none of what you say here reconciles the fundamental contradiction between self-interested action, which life requires whether one likes it or not and self-sacrifice, which if practiced fully leads to death. There's no contradiction between 100% self-interested action and helping others, being kind to others unless ones holds that it can't be in anyone's interest to help others.
There is no contradiction but there's an apparent contradiction, I think. It depends on your definition of "100% self-interested" because how you will decide what's in your interests is heavily dependent on your ability to see past the end of your own dick, so to speak. It requires self-control, patience, vision, and a fairly nuanced understanding of how people and things and events are interrelated over time, and so to paradoxically forego your own comfort / wealth / leisure.
(23-05-2017 02:22 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  I hold that all Human interactions should be win/win. This is the moral code of life. Altruism or self-sacrifice calls for lose/ win relationships and that is why I consider it evil, i.e., anti-life.
Altruism is the practice of selfless concern for the well being of others. You propose a self-interested concern for the well being of others. I think the latter is a more honest way to frame it, that this is what people in fact DO practice and what altruism in fact actually IS. People like to frame it as "selfless" to seem more noble and to feed their martyr complexes and get props from others that focuses not on the long-term benefits of their self-sacrifices, but on the short-term deprivations or just their willingness to do things that are optional and entirely voluntary. But whether they admit it to themselves or others or not, they do NOTHING that isn't in what they perceive to be their rational self-interest.

Where it becomes evil and anti-life, is when people are shamed, pressured, controlled or frightened into doing things that are disconnected from their personal calculus of long term rational self-interest. Often, this involves getting people to do the right things for the wrong reasons, or before they are ready to voluntarily do them, before they see the value in them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
23-05-2017, 11:35 AM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
I don't know if Christianity is evil but Christians sure can be. Anyone who puts being homosexual in the same category of "sin" as rape, murder, and pedophilia is at best an idiot, and at worse just straight up sick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
23-05-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
true scotsman: While others may have moral "opinions", my morality is based in facts, is fully integrated with the primacy of existence, and is validated by reason, therefore it is objective.
[/quote]

Morality is expressed through a person's choices, not opinions. How is your morality based on facts? What does that even mean? Do you really think you know how everyone should behave?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Angra Mainyu's post
23-05-2017, 06:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2017 06:27 PM by Cheerful Charlie.)
RE: Is Christianity Evil?
(23-05-2017 11:35 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  I don't know if Christianity is evil but Christians sure can be. Anyone who puts being homosexual in the same category of "sin" as rape, murder, and pedophilia is at best an idiot, and at worse just straight up sick.

1 Peter 4:15-16 King James Version (KJV)

15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.

----

It is notable that a man can be condemned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath according to God, but nowhere in the OT is rape or pedophilia mentioned as mortal crime.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: