Home › Forums › Philosophy › Atheism Quarterdeck: Aspiring Christian Apologists Welcome
This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Sandals 4 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
FrankOne wrote:
I never argued that technology can provide a morality or that I had faith in it, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.
Technology is not the solution to all problems. Even if we spend more effort developing it, we still need to put forth equal effort in trying to understand when/how/where/etc. to use it.John, the question wasn’t whether technology solves all problems. The question was whether spending limited resources, across human history, on an entity such as the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations, or spending it on other alternative endeavors results in human advancement and improved welfare. What did Ra ever do for me? From a philosophical standpoint, if the hereafter is all that matters, who cares about the world we live in?
And no, very little ‘effort’ is required to determine how to use something, very much, to develop it.FrankOne wrote:
I disagree completely about carving a figurine; nobody I know expects moral answers from scientific inquiries, and I know many physical and chemical researchers, as well as ‘technologists’ such as myself (Engineer).
This is where the argument “branches” off because people such as Sam Harris do. However, because you do not expect science to determine morality where/how exactly do you expect it to be observed/defined?Lots of thinkers have believed in objective morality long before Sam Harris. Ayn Rand is probably the first I read when I was a kid, but she is certainly not the first to seek the Holy Grail of objective morality. First, there’s nothing ‘magical’ about morality; we can study it scientifically (i.e. why people have certain moral beliefs), but just like I may have a preference for redheads or blondes or skiing, and a disdain for, say, marriage 2.0 contracts, doesn’t mean the scientific method can be used to determine whether skiing is the best use of my time… There is some evidence morality evolved in social species and not just humans. It’s certainly ingrained in most species that don’t typically kill their own kind.
There are ‘frameworks’ for secular morality, but I would hardly describe consequentialism, freethinking, or secular humanism as providing OBJECTIVE moralities any more than religion does so. Then again, I’m very glad Christians are subjective moralists and don’t read the bible literally about stoning disobedient children or killing apostates. You have not made a convincing argument that Roman Catholic morality is ‘better’ than ‘heathen’ morality. After all, violent crime in Sweden is less than the US, and it’s far less religious… Why do heathen countries like Japan have lower violent crime than Christian countries? I like what Einstein said about morality: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.” This is a simple formulation or statement of subjective ethics, one of many, but in my opinion one of the more eloquent.
Galileo and geocentricity: I’m done with it after this. Galileo didn’t ‘preach’ anything – he made observations about reality. ‘Preaching’ is making up bulls~~~ or promulgating other horse-s~~~ made up by others. The Enlightenment wrought great human progress; the domination of the Roman Catholic Church DIDN’T; it brought suppression of ideas, opacity, and corruption… Look at the governance in Catholic-dominated countries… Questioning and doubting lead to innovation and growth. Did the independent Greek City-States produce more innovation than all of Christendumb under the Pope and his henchmen? Obedience, to slavery and stagnation. Sure, Galileo was warned by the clerical asshats – then persecuted when he didn’t follow orders. Personally, I don’t want to live in a society dominated by the Roman Catholic pedophile clergy dictating everyone’s actions and what constitutes thoughtcrime; you clearly do and so you defend it.Galileo couldn’t ‘preach’ truths about reality but clerical asshats could preach bulls~~~ they pulled out of the Bible? Do you see a problem with that, John? What ‘evidence’ did those clerics have to produce to avoid house arrest? As for the rest of it, I actually KNOW how to perform rudimentary QM calculations, so you’re not impressing me with your BS… Geocentrism and heliocentrism is not the difference between an arbitrary coordinate system. And yes, macroscopic particles also adhere to quantum mechanics… But go calculate the wavelength of a basketball – if you know how to do so — and you’ll see how insignificant that is… Throwing up a bunch of smoke screens won’t work when you’re having a discussion with someone that has studied advanced math. At the end of the day, you have to decide: Do you want to live in the world of Christendom where the Pope & his Henchmen determine the fate of men and ideas, or a world where free inquiry and religious freedom predominate? Obedience and Inquisition, or Enlightenment?
Capitalist governments do not outright ban a faith but promote heresies and contradictions in it to further consumer culture. In regards to theocratic societies, a tax is usually put into place. To summarize your problem, your issue is less about a faith but more to totalitarian governments, however you cannot make this criticism as your morality is fundamentally subjective (according to you all morality is subjective including your own) so in one respect they are doing the right thing and in another you are stating subjective wrongs.
Bollocks. Last I checked you could open up any church you wanted to fleece sheeple. Yes, my morality is subjective, but I still have preferences for how people should live together and interact in society. You are really showing your true colors here, John; anybody that doesn’t agree with you, their opinion doesn’t count – only I have the One Truth and Objective Morality. I know God exists, and I know His Will… THAT is the difference between religious fanaticism and humanism. Despite having subjective morality, the vast majority of Americans of many religions and no religions, would agree that, say, going into a restaurant and shooting people is immoral. As I’ve stated many times, your morality is ALSO subjective; you choose a particular religion and interpret it cafeteria-Catholic style. If you’re not killing apostates and stoning disobedient children then it’s not Gawd’s objective morality.
Usury (interest) is clearly prohibited by the Bible in numerous verses. Cafeteria Christians don’t adhere to that admonition; literalists do – I’ve known a few so I know what I’m talking about here. Your attempts to defend bible-approved slavery have been a total failure. If slavery is part of a corrupt human nature, why is it not widely practiced today? If this is righteous and man could stop the practice, why didn’t God prescribe it? And slavery is NOT working a minimum wage job. Slavery is where one is bought and sold, and an owner dictates where you live, how you spend all your time, and can injure you with impunity…
I’ve repeatedly proven false the statement that if you have the same value, you will have the same morality… You couldn’t explain how some Bible thumpers who valued life were pacifists always, some will go to war, and some would and would not defend themselves against aggression… That’s because depending on what verses they read they all have what is called a S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E morality John.
Right, atheists and non-believers have no courage?
The firmament is BULL-SHEET to anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge. It’s part of biblical cosmology. Look up raqia. If you want to defend the sun stopping, be my guest… Now I prefer Mohommad, he split the Moon in two, pieces of IED shrapnel be Upon Him. That’s a pretty kewl miracle.
Your arguments relating to biblical cosmology have been less than convincing so far. As for Tyre, ya gotta make up a bunch of crap. Never be rebuilt means ‘no city there’ to a normal person…I never said one could be saved outside the church, they can’t. I said that all the saved are in the Church. So cannot outside the church be save? Through conversion, yes. In regards to “ignorance” there are certain constant truths evident in all cultures and moralities however the Catholic church is the fullest expression of these truths and by default correct. If someone is ignorant of the Church, geniuinely speaking, yet still follows these certain truths as dictated by their concious then in many respects they are already undergoing a conversion process and in some respects maintain a Catholic (universal) identity that is awaiting a full conversion. So assuming there is no chance to fully express their faith on earth, (no Catholic education/Church/etc.) by default they express some of it through concious observance of these Catholic (universal) truths that are evident in all mankind. So in one respect they are ignorant, as in not fully practicing the faith, in another they are still acknowledging what is not known to them as revealed through a faith. In this acknowledgement of what is true they are partaking of Catholicism yet they may be unaware. Even Jesus himself acknowledged that noone could be judged before his coming, because they did not know better, yet because he came and the people were aware they could be deamed guilty of denying the truth. The Catholic faith is the sole bastion of truth, reason, and faith in a confused world. Its moral theology is sound. Its theology is sound. The issue comes from the people not practicing the faith, but those are the times we live in. Everyone goes thier own way.
Close, but no cigar. Previous doctrine was you couldn’t be saved outside the church; that became embarrassing; now you can be. Even apologists have trouble explaining doctrinal switcharoo. Google it — it’s now called a ‘positive reformulation’. Hahahahahahaha If you actually care to learn about this, study the comments of Popes across the last millennia on this topic.
Catholic church the fullest expression of morality? Look at the way the Catholic church protected its pedophile priesthood from civil prosecution, declared bankruptcy of subsidiaries (a.k.a. ‘dioceses’) to protect the parent corporation (a.k.a. Vatican) money from survivors, and executed immoral Inquisitions, Crusades, and literal witch-hunts over hundreds of years. And let us not forget the persecution of the Jews under Christians in Europe.
The Catholic Church doesn’t even disclose its finances because its vast wealth is embarassing in light of its supposed mission of charity.FrankOne wrote:
Only if lying is immoral in my morality system.
If lying was moral, then one can decieve even oneself as to the morality which which they follow making them by default immoral as they could twist the original morality to something other than itself.That was meant as a joke…
Slavery: I’m going to keep it short and simple. The Pope and his minions supported it, then they recanted. It’s another example of ‘developing doctrine’ in a Church with supposedly objective morality. Objective morality? Objective means independent of the observer. But now, you say aliens ,God, etc don’t necessarily have the same morality…. Smells like more subjectivism. Remember the change-o-rama when God went from Old Testament to New? So which of the two moralities was subjective?
Nobody likes the idea of subjective morality, I didn’t like it when I first studied it in high school decades ago. As for God’s morality, omnipotence has limits – God can’t prohibit himself from doing something AND then do it. So why then must He not be subject to morality?
As for the rest of it, the Bible says you should kill children who curse their parents; and witches. Most Christians don’t do a lot of things in the bible… That’s called S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E morality. Really, John, I’m done with this one, the fact that slaveholders and abolitionists both could use the same Bible to justify their beliefs is a pretty good indicator too of subjectivity amongst the Sheeple.John, the question wasn’t whether technology solves all problems.
But it leaves us at that point, it is unavoidable and limiting to much of human nature.
After all, violent crime in Sweden is less than the US, and it’s far less religious… Why do heathen countries like Japan have lower violent crime than Christian countries?
And the old soviet Union had massive amounts of corruption and no religion either, so the example does not prove anything. In regards to the U.S. being religious, I would have to disagree with that. Although it gives the “appearance” of being religious I would say most churches are fundamentally businesses. The USSR completely banned faiths as it followed a Marxist philosophy. The US just rerouted them into businesses as it was run by Freud-like psychology. I never argued, nor claimed the U.S. was religious at all. I actually believe the opposite, and you should agree on this point also as you claim most churches are businesses.
I like what Einstein said about morality: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.” This is a simple formulation or statement of subjective ethics, one of many, but in my opinion one of the more eloquent.
And how does this disagree with faith exactly? Also to claim this as a truth would in many respects place it as a dogma. Religion (if you look up the definition) is unavoidable. Let me clarify that: Religion is unavoidable. People will always follow a dogma (even if they make it up) and depend on faith based premises that have no basis in objective reality.
You claim that a “fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death” are a negative aspect of morality yet you argue for rational self interest as the correct morality. On one hand you argue against a faith because of “reward/punishment” yet objectivism goes by similar tenets as rational self-interest. Circular logic? Yes.
Galileo couldn’t ‘preach’ truths about reality but clerical asshats could preach bulls~~~ they pulled out of the Bible? Do you see a problem with that, John? What ‘evidence’ did those clerics have to produce to avoid house arrest? As for the rest of it, I actually KNOW how to perform rudimentary QM calculations, so you’re not impressing me with your BS… Geocentrism and heliocentrism is not the difference between an arbitrary coordinate system. And yes, macroscopic particles also adhere to quantum mechanics… But go calculate the wavelength of a basketball – if you know how to do so — and you’ll see how insignificant that is… Throwing up a bunch of smoke screens won’t work when you’re having a discussion with someone that has studied advanced math. At the end of the day, you have to decide: Do you want to live in the world of Christendom where the Pope & his Henchmen determine the fate of men and ideas, or a world where free inquiry and religious freedom predominate? Obedience and Inquisition, or Enlightenment?
In regards to the first point you claim (if I understand correctly) that (using the Gallileo “incident” as an example)
-the church hindered scientific proof
-scientific proof is what makes the world a better place
-therefore the church is evil.You are fundamentally arguing, if I understand correctly, that gaining understanding of the natural world will give us
power over it and in a sense “free us”. Because the church does not focus its attention on this, then it is somehow
deficient in “virtue.” My question is what will happen when we aquire all this knowledge? What good is it if we do not
know how to use it? It would be the equivalent of handing a child a loaded gun without any direction or guidance.
All the technology of the world cannot solve our problems if we do not know what to do with it. That is why the church
never focused on gaining physical knowledge. Their is no moral imperative to do so. It will not make the world a better
(or worse) place.At the end of the day, Gallileo was permitted to give an argument of the pros and cons of geocentrism
and chose to ignore it and promote his theory without evidence.You claim that the church hindered scientific thinking, yet it maintained many of the records from ancient greece and
applied it to the science of the time. It protected many ancient records (and still does) let me make that clear.
However you will then say because it protected ancient records that it is fundamentally subjective and influenced
by prior beliefs. So it is a circular argument you are making. The church is influenced by the culture, however the
church is evil, so the culture is evil. However the church is evil because it suppresses the culture. Yet the
culture is what defines the church.This is all according to you of course. Now do you understand that you make no sense at all? But how can you, after
all you claim all interpretation right and wrong is ONLY subjective, which by default makes you subjective. So if you are subjective then
your understanding is subjective, and by default bias. But then you argue that the church is bias and being bias is wrong.
But you claim to be bias from the beginning (as I have pointed out with historical facts, interpretations,etc.) so by
default you admit you are wrong. In many respects you admit to being wrong and are trying to point out everyone is wrong
like you. But that would make everyone right. But if everyone is right then the church is right. But you say it is
wrong.In regards to Heliocentrism and Geocentrism how is it not based on the point of measurement? Geocentrists claim that
the sun revolves around the earth. Heliocentrists argue that the earth revolves around the sun. Either way a point
from which measurements are taken is used. Heliocentrism became popular because it provided a more accurate predictions
of celestial movements. However the ancient aztecs and mayans did not focus on the relationship of the sun and the
earth and was found to be more accurate than many of the calendars we possess today. So you argue for heliocentricity
as it maintains a more accurate prediction of the stars than geocentrism and use that to prove geocentrism wrong. Yet
ancient mesoamerican calendars are more accurate than ours and do not focus on either a heliocentric or geocentric theory.
Add to that einsteins theory of relativity.So in many respects heliocentricism is wrong and both geocentrism are wrong in that they are fundamentally subjective
points from which a measurement is taken place. But then you will claim that “because geocentrism is wrong the scripture
is wrong and not inspire by God” however there is no statement in the bible that claims that the earth is the center of
everything. You claim that scripture “has to be read literally” yet it offers no claim as to the earth being the center of
anything. So according to your required “literalist” understanding of the bible we are not left with a geocentric claim.
This leaves us (going back to the Gallileo point) which an institution that argues science from greek texts, as the
scriptures themselves are not based on divulging scientific understanding. So you cannot claim that the clerics were
pulling this from the bible only, as they relied on ancient greek texts. Also you cannot claim the church went out of its
way to intentionally stifle scientific knowledge as it protected many of those texts. Also you cannot claim the church
missused its “infallibility” as that only applies to certain aspects of the faith. It never claim infallibility
in regards to certain scientific or astronomical knowledge. It never made an infallible statement in regards to
heliocentricism or geocentrism. Most infallible statements are applied to certain doctrines which are continually questioned.
Some doctrines are not infallible, others are.Here is more on infallibility:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibilityYes, my morality is subjective, but I still have preferences for how people should live together and interact in society. You are really showing your true colors here, John; anybody that doesn’t agree with you, their opinion doesn’t count – only I have the One Truth and Objective morality.
-Actually you said all morality is subjective, then according to you I am subjective, which by default means I am doing
nothing wrong.
-Also, technically according to you, as long as I am subjective I am correct. But if I am not subjective in
my morality, as I may follow certain moral codes which are not subjective in nature, then I would be wrong.
-You casting judgement on me, as right or wrong, would require an objective morality.
-Also you are making an objective statement in saying that all morality is subjective.You are really showing your true colors here, Frankone; anybody that doesn’t agree with you, their opinion doesn’t count – only I have the One Truth and Objective Morality (in that all morality is subjective and objective morality is wrong [more circular thinking])
And for the record I never said that your opinion does not count. I am saying you claim reason only, yet are irrational
and full of circular thinking. In other words, your statements on morality make no sense. Wait let me redefine that,
they make sense to you as they give you no accountability in conscience. You can do what you want and as long as you
feel good, then it is right. You cannot really blame any authority figures for “oppressing” anyone because after all they
are following the same standard.As I’ve stated many times, your morality is ALSO subjective; you choose a particular religion and interpret it cafeteria-Catholic style. If you’re not killing apostates and stoning disobedient children then it’s not Gawd’s objective morality.
I can chose the religion but I cannot change certain fundamental aspects of it. You cannot claim to have a subjective
morality while claiming bodily urges as right. In many respects you would be subject to the flesh. In regards to my
interpretation, none of it contradicted core tenets of the faith. In regards to the next point (I can tell you are
starting to lose it) that is not part of the faith. Jesus himself stated not to do these things and explained why. You
really have no understanding of Catholicism do you? You are anxious to cast judgement on something you do not know
or understand because it does not fit with your subjective philosophy. This is why I do the research myself, as most of
you adults are so childish that I cannot get a logical response from you. I feel like I am dealing with kids somedays.Usury (interest) is clearly prohibited by the Bible in numerous verses. Cafeteria Christians don’t adhere to that admonition; literalists do – I’ve known a few so I know what I’m talking about here. Your attempts to defend bible-approved slavery have been a total failure. If slavery is part of a corrupt human nature, why is it not widely practiced today? If this is righteous and man could stop the practice, why didn’t God prescribe it? And slavery is NOT working a minimum wage job. Slavery is where one is bought and sold, and an owner dictates where you live, how you spend all your time, and can injure you with impunity…
In regards to the first point by claiming that someone is a cafeteria Christian you are claiming that they are picking
and chosing from a faith that has certain rules As the rules cannot be changed. So not all morality is subjective.
What literalist Christians are you talking about? What denomination exactly?In regards to the second point I have never defended slavery as right. Slavery is still practiced today:
-http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx
-thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com
-www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/19/modern-day-slavery-america-must…
-wgbhnews.org/post/human-trafficking-modern-day-slavery-america
If you look at the definition of “hebrew slave/biblical slavery” it is way more kinder than this. In many respects
its does not fulfill what your requirements are for complete slavery. I already posted it, but as usual you ignored
it. You argument about “slavery being promoted” in the bible is either subjective interpretation or flat out wrong.
But you cannot really say I am wrong can you? After all, according to you my morality is subjective, so I am right.
So what is the issue? Stop acting like a hypocrite and passing judgment on others. You also cannot claim slavery is
wrong, as all morality is subjective. So according to you under certain cirumstances slavery is right. You make
no sense at all.Do you even read what you right? Or do you just like alluding to everyone else is wrong but me and expect it to be
believed without healthy skepticism? How can you make infallible statements, such as morality is subjective, when you
yourself argue that infallibility in any faith is wrong?I’ve repeatedly proven false the statement that if you have the same value, you will have the same morality… You couldn’t explain how some Bible thumpers who valued life were pacifists always, some will go to war, and some would and would not defend themselves against aggression… That’s because depending on what verses they read they all have what is called a S-U-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E morality John.
Uhh…I actually did. Either the denominations are seperate or the person is either not following their faith and the
rules of their denomination. And the scriptures clearly state that a subjective reading of them is wrong, as they are
not meant to be twisted (as you are doing). So many of the people who created certain denominations are wrong, but those
who follow them out of ignorance (as in born into it) are not committing as great of a wrong (or none at all under
specific circumstances).Previous doctrine was you couldn’t be saved outside the church; that became embarrassing; now you can be. Even apologists have trouble explaining doctrinal switcharoo. Google it — it’s now called a ‘positive reformulation’. Hahahahahahaha If you actually care to learn about this, study the comments of Popes across the last millennia on this topic. Catholic church the fullest expression of morality? Look at the way the Catholic church protected its pedophile priesthood from civil prosecution, declared bankruptcy of subsidiaries (a.k.a. ‘dioceses’) to protect the parent corporation (a.k.a. Vatican) money from survivors, and executed immoral Inquisitions, Crusades, and literal witch-hunts over hundreds of years. And let us not forget the persecution of the Jews under Christians in Europe.
Uhh…I actually did. Either the denominations are seperate or the person is either not following their faith and the
rules of their denomination. And the scriptures clearly state that a subjective reading of them is wrong, as they are
not meant to be twisted (as you are doing). So many of the people who created certain denominations are wrong, but those
who follow them out of ignorance (as in born into it) are not committing as great of a wrong (or none at all under
specific circumstances).In regards to the “switcharoo” I do not understand what you are talking about as I explain the faith. There never
was a switcharoo or going back on any teachings. I also googled positive reformulation and got barely any results.
I have looked at many of the popes teachings and statements. This is a twofold issue. As first, not everything that
comes out of the popes mouth is infallible (look at infalliblity link for further understanding) and second none of them
contradicted the explanation I gave (which is Catholic). So maybe before you sling accusations (because you have to
prove the world is like you) you can be more specific? Because I thought I was specific enough.In regards to the “pedophilia” the church obviously is not following its own teachings. There is also a divide as some
want to make the faith more subjective (like you) and others are are trying to maintain its identity. I have seen this
in real life for myself. It is a complicated issue, never the less the identity of the church will survive. To simply
put it, there are those in the church who want to eliminate the church using subversion.In regards to the inquisitions etc. they are following their own subjective morality. So according to you they are correct.
With that being said, the inquisitions dealt with heresy both inside and outside of the church as a theocratic government
was promoted by the people at that time. In regards to the crusades, the first several were for literal defense and organized
by the pope. Others were started by kings and were named crusades. Either way the crusades were not viewed in a positive
light at the time, as many viewed it as a punishment.
In regards to the witch hunts the Catholic generally talked the
protestents out of it and in many respects were against it. The notion of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” was actually
developed by a Catholic Jesuit named Friedrich Spee who developed it in regards to the protestants pushing the witch
hunt “mentalitly”.In other words, get your facts straight and dont mesh everything together.
Objective morality? Objective means independent of the observer. But now, you say aliens ,God, etc don’t necessarily have the same morality…. Smells like more subjectivism. Remember the change-o-rama when God went from Old Testament to New? So which of the two moralities was subjective? Nobody likes the idea of subjective morality, I didn’t like it when I first studied it in high school decades ago. As for God’s morality, omnipotence has limits – God can’t prohibit himself from doing something AND then do it. So why then must He not be subject to morality?
I never said Aliens had to have a different morality. I said we do not know enought to make a judgement on it and under
certain circumstances it is possible it may be different and viceverse.
In regards to the Old to New testament (which is where most of your criticisms come from) Jesus revealed the true nature
of morality and did not change it but rather showed it in its fullness. A change was not made but rather a revealing
of what and where the laws were suppose to eventually lead us. Even Jesus himself said the law was not fully revealed
because of the “hardness of the hearts” of the people at the time and prior. So the law is not subjective in itself, as
it was always there, but rather made evident through Christ himself.If morality was fundamentally subjective then it would follow certain dogmatic laws making it objective. It makes no
sense. God cannot be subject to morality as he is Justice himself, and morality with no justice is no morality at all.Really, John, I’m done with this one, the fact that slaveholders and abolitionists both could use the same Bible to justify their beliefs is a pretty good indicator too of subjectivity amongst the Sheeple.
No it just means that people can twist things for their own gain as they will take somethings out of context or use
partial verses. You know how politics is, this is just a dumb criticism. I mean seriously is this all you have? Seriously?
The bible is wrong because it was used for political gain? Well human life is used for political gain so it must be wrong to.
Or better yet, people use words for political gain that means all words are a lie or better yet one cannot understand
another as all words are only subjective.But I get it, point out the wrongs in everyone else and if there are none then make them up. After all if all morality
is subjective, and you are subjective, then all those who are subjective like you are moral. How more closed minded can it
get? Not to mention this is an objective moral truth.I am making a guess, that you are trying to prove Christianity wrong as nothing to do with Christianity but rather justifying
you wanting to do what you want to do. That is why these conversations go on and on. I bet, and this is a guess, this is
about justifying your own personal actions. You said it yourself that all morality is subjective,
so in many respects you are interpreting everything to fit you.Prove the scriptures are about geocentrism. Geocentrism is wrong. Scriptures are wrong. Christian morality is wrong.
You can do what you want to do. Obsure some religions with others. All religions are wrong. No objective morality. You
can do what you want to do. You argument, oh how did you put it, is nothing but a “smoke screen” for self justification.Your view point would be as follows: If a person is a Christian they are doing it because it is convenient (feels good,
listening to family friends, etc.) They you will say Christianity is oppressive because it doesn’t allow us to feel good,
seperates people, etc. You are not a true skeptic, just biased. But you already admitted to that.
So how can you
pervay any “truth” when all you can do is twist its interpretation to your own means. You accuse everyone else of it, so
how are you any different? What you are moral and they are not? But you said everything is subjective. I don’t get it.
I really doubt you do either, but this is not about reasoning this is about your way and everyone having to fit into it.FrankOne wrote:
John, the question wasn’t whether technology solves all problems.But it leaves us at that point, it is unavoidable and limiting to much of human nature.
John, the question of technology, was whether resources were better directed towards witch doctors, priests, and Imams, or to human material development. And that is another question you dodged. Does praying for people and training more priests improve human welfare, or improving crop yields so man is less prone to starvation? A massive amount of resources have gone to religion and I made an argument that it had not improved mankind’s material welfare significantly. In the case of Christianity under specific discussion, the persecutions of Jews and others, set civilization BACK. I also made an argument that a single dominant religion tends to lead to corrupt social orders, whether that religion be Roman Catholicism or Islam, among others.
As for technology being finitely limited, yes, but as I type this in my temperature-controlled home, I am communicating across vast distances instantly to numerous individuals I’ll never even meet in person… Something not possible even a few decades ago. If we want to live forever in Paradise, would a better approach be to spend resources on life extension research that may lead to real and tangible improvements, even if not immortality, or to pray and read and follow ancient holy books (after, of course, picking which one is Twooooo (True) by divine personal revelation/diceroll/whichever Church has the best music/or similar Advanced Methods)?FrankOne wrote:
After all, violent crime in Sweden is less than the US, and it’s far less religious… Why do heathen countries like Japan have lower violent crime than Christian countries?And the old soviet Union had massive amounts of corruption and no religion either, so the example does not prove anything. In regards to the U.S. being religious, I would have to disagree with that. Although it gives the “appearance” of being religious I would say most churches are fundamentally businesses. The USSR completely banned faiths as it followed a Marxist philosophy. The US just rerouted them into businesses as it was run by Freud-like psychology. I never argued, nor claimed the U.S. was religious at all. I actually believe the opposite, and you should agree on this point also as you claim most churches are businesses.
The Soviet Union was not a transparent society with a free media. Part of the reason for persecuting religions there, was the corrupt Orthodox church was in league and deeply enmeshed with the corrupt autocratic Bolshevik regieme that was overthrown by the corrupt communist regieme. You leave a lot of history out of your responses. The [Orthodox] Church owned a significant portion of the land in Russia, which was part of the reason for the 1917 revolution. . . And Orthodoxy wasn’t ‘banned’; initially after the 1917 revolution, many bishops were executed, but when the Nazis invaded Stalin got in league with the Church and there was a revitalization (two corrupt Church & State regiemes in league with one another, just like Putin & Orthodoxy today!), later, under Khruschev, they cracked down a bit again, but with more jailings than killings, and still thousands of Orthodox churches remained open for business (err, ‘worship’). The regieme persecuted more strongly other nationalistic churches, than it did the Russian Orthodox Church. ‘Banned’ as you describe, is simply incorrect.
On the one hand, you say we must have Christianity to be moral; yet I have noted predominately Christian countries, that have more crime and corruption, than non-Christian countries. They seem to be doing fine without any priests providing objective morality whilst molesting young boys or covering up underlings engaging in same.
Yes, I regard Churches as businesses, but in surveys, most Americans identify themselves as Christians. I’m not seeing countries in which most citizens identify as ‘Christians’ having lower crime rates. And corruption is definitely higher when one faith dominates, especially in theocracies. America is certainly less religious than in the past, but certainly still predominately Christian.
I don’t know why you keep bringing totalitarian regiemes into this discussion; Stalin’s ideology was whatever would keep him in power. That’s why he did the about-face on Orthodoxy. Similarly, Putin doesn’t give a s~~~ if Orthodoxy is true (I suspect he knows it’s bulls~~~), but he’s in league with them for votes and credibility. Just like the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia is in league with the Wahabbists. Stalin was a paranoid madman; the purges had everything to do with power — loyalty or perceived loyalty, were everything.FrankOne wrote:
I like what Einstein said about morality: “A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.” This is a simple formulation or statement of subjective ethics, one of many, but in my opinion one of the more eloquent.And how does this disagree with faith exactly? Also to claim this as a truth would in many respects place it as a dogma. Religion (if you look up the definition) is unavoidable. Let me clarify that: Religion is unavoidable. People will always follow a dogma (even if they make it up) and depend on faith based premises that have no basis in objective reality. You claim that a “fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death” are a negative aspect of morality yet you argue for rational self interest as the correct morality. On one hand you argue against a faith because of “reward/punishment” yet objectivism goes by similar tenets as rational self-interest. Circular logic? Yes.
Most faith-based systems spell out ethics and ‘rules’ which are then selectively followed. We’ve already discussed stoning people, slavery, and killing apostates and disobedient children as it relates to Christianity.
‘Faith’ means: ‘strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.’ — and so, this scheme for morality, differs considerably than one in which you follow a specific rulebook written ~1900 years ago (Bible), along with all the extra made-up rules of the Magisteria over the last two millenia. If you instead go by the definition of faith as ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something.’ this subjective morality doesn’t meet the faith definition either, since it isn’t claiming infallibility. You can certainly disagree with atheism or agnosticism, but similarly, calling them a ‘faith’ is ridiculous.
Religion is defined as ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.’ — that’s a typical definition. So saying ‘religion is unavoidable’ is also nonsense. Following a dogma? Ah, no. Dogma is a set of beliefs that one doesn’t question. ‘Sympathy, education, social ties and needs’ is fluid and individualistic; not accepting morality from an authority like a Priest.
Should you engage in an activity because it’s right or because you’ll receive a reward for it in the afterlife? Christian God says to kill the apostate; I would disagree with this, and help the apostate; your view, is to selectively ignore the command since it’s no longer applicable by your arbitrary standards of reading God’s will of when/whether to follow commandments. It’s in my interest that everyone be allowed to practice their religion, or lack thereof, freely — since, one day the Pope-led mob may go back to burning witches and apostates; the next day, unbelievers. I argued against mindlessly following a creed to achieve a reward/punishment in the afterlife (which, after all, is PRECISELY the rational self-interest you just argued AGAINST) and FOR thinking for yourself. You agreed with me on not killing apostates and witches. Congratulations on independent thinking on those two, though you may burn in hell for it, unless, of course, the Magisteria does a doctrinal switcheroo on any Biblical requirements.
‘follow a dogma even if they make it up’? They’ll either follow one ‘made up’ by somebody else, or they’ll REASON through their own morality.
Finally, you keep making claims about circular logic. There is nothing circular about defining your own morality.
Rational self interest means acting in ways that will maximize your self interest. Different people will likely have different understandings of this based on their values. Now, this does result in a SUBJECTIVE morality since different people will necessarily have different values.
It’s just like the nonsense about atheism being a religion; some religions are atheistic, e.g. Buddhism — but atheism itself — is not a religion — it has no dogma or holy book and makes no claims about a creator. Look up the definition of ‘religion’.
You seem obsessed with attempting to ‘prove’ morality can come only from one religion. Yet wholly unable to convincingly justify all of the immoral directives in the Bible, other than saying, oooops, those no longer apply. And equally incapable of providing a rational, convincing defense of God’s immoral behavior and actions within the Bible.My time is limited, but I will respond to a few more points. I’ll just type a response rather than quote both of us, to keep this shorter.
In my view, scientific inquiry and technological development are a much better use of human resources than giving money to the Church so it can buy more land/investments and control more people. The Church, by persecuting non-believers, schismatics, and dissenters, has not furthered the sort of free inquiry which results in innovation or vibrant socieities. I grant it has reduced this persecution significantly — it can’t get away with it anymore — but ONLY because its temporal power has declined tremendously over the last several centuries.
As stated in previous posts, there isn’t much to ‘knowing how to use it[technology]’ — we don’t need a legion of pedophile-defending Bishops and Cardinals to tell us how to use technology. Remember, these are the guys that didn’t want child molesters prosecuted under civilian law — they are the masterminds of moving priests between parishes to abuse more children — are they the guardians of morality on Earth? These are the same authorities that a few centuries ago, supervised killing entire communities of Jews and schismatics in Europe — so their blood-red Cardinal outfits — ARE approporiate. I’d rather have individual philosophers competing and arguing with one another on how to use technology, than an opaque, hierachial organization with its own interests, with no competing counter-views (remember the ‘ole Banned Book List (‘Index Librorum Prohibitorum’) brought to you by the Holy Roman Catholic Church? Unfortunately, they got rid of it in 1966 along with all the other changes… In its history, the Church BURNED far more books than it PRESERVED, so I’m calling you on the BS of ‘preserving ancient knowledge’. The Church has historically been in the business of burning and banning — burning people that disagreed with it (inquisition) and banning their publications.
And Galileo may have avoided execution, but Giordano Bruno did not. It was pretty much, recant, or burn at ye old stake. That’s what the Church did in 1600.
I made an argument for a society in which individuals can express their beliefs without persecution and death.
The Church never focused on gaining knowledge about the material world because that wasn’t its mission, and knowledge is dangerous if it loosens up control. If, for instsance, the Bible can be read in the Vernacular, people start asking, why don’t Roman Catholics follow it, and bingo, schism time, and Protestantism branches off. You now have a much smaller ‘flock’ to ‘fleece’. The danger of schism is not people not finding salvation; in all religions, schism means less Priesthood power and influence. If some other charismatic prophet/con-man can take away part of the flock and fleece them for his own benefit, your Church just shrunk. Simply having multiple competing relgions, delegitimizes all of them so suppression has been a recurring characteristic, not just among Catholics.
Now, the Church DID focus on material WEALTH and was the largest landowner! So, whilst it may have had little interest in technology, it was VERY interested in wealth, control, and temporal power. Despite all the power, it was NOT very interested in promoting democracy or good governance; rather it was interested in a symbiotic relationship with Kings.
I’m done on discussing Galileo; as said, the ‘inquisitors’ didn’t provide ANY evidence. When Bruno was BURNT TO THE F~~~ING CRISP ON A STAKE, there was no ‘evidence’ — no need for them to PROVE the Bible was true — anything that disagrees with it is called ‘heresy’ — burn baby burn time. If the inquisitors were ever proved wrong, did the accused get to strangle their accusers & burn them at the stake? Please, read and study the history of Bruno. Learn about Wycliffe; the church exhumed him so the maniacal Great Moral Leader Pope could BURN HIS F~~~ING BONES AFTER HE DIED. A POSTHUMOUS EXECUTION.
In the end you’re left babbling about subjective morality. Subjective or not, most people believe the following are wrong: (1) Defending pedophiles against civil prosecution (Bishops and Cardinals up to and including former Pope ‘Rat’ were pros at this, hence he had to go bye-bye before he went die-die (i.e. resigned) when the fire under his f~~~ing feet was getting a tad too hot at the height of the pedopriest scandal), (2.) killing Jews, witches, schismatics, (3.) multiple inquisitions, crusades, burning heretics, and the banned book list.
You failed to answer my question about whether post-Enlightenment world we live in today, or the Christendom world (the world of inquisitions, low rates of technological development, rule of kings, and lack of free exptression) is preferred? Christendumb is what you got when the Roman Catholic Church was large & in charge & in league with Kings! They owned vast land & had temporal power. What did they do with it? Ever hear of the Divine Right of Kings? That is the sort of doctrine that holds democracy back for centuries… And the sort of doctrine that makes the ‘unholy alliance’ between Church and State possible… The divine right of Kings isn’t unique to Christianity, but that is certainly Christendom 101. The Church provides legitimacy to the State, and the State gives it kickbacks, special privileges, and exemption from persecution in return — a symbiotic relationship spelling tyranny for the people, typically. It’s what you had in Saudi Arabia. And Russia. And other places. The priesthood in league with the thug rulers — NOT at all unique to Christianity.
The larger question in the persecution of Galileo is whether a religious authority should be able to judge ideas and dictate what is published. Should the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to burn people at the stake like it did to Bruno in the year 1600? And determine what books may be published? It is also the question, of whether free expression and inquiry should prevail. Whether imams should declare fatwas (‘holy’ orders to kill) against authors, and churches publish ‘banned book lists’ for centuries, or whether free expression should prevail. These are questions of individual values; some may wish to live in a religious police state. I actually favor your right to break away into a religious community freely, as did the Shakers and others, as long as you don’t force it on me.
I’m done discussing Biblical cosmology. If you read the Bible and verses regarding the firmament, stopping the sun, etc you will understand the authors did not have even a rudimentary understanding of science. Now you’re left in the desperate argument that ‘well, everything in the Bible is BS if it it’s cosmology, history, or science, but the moral precepts, well, those are objective and divinely inspired’. The truth is, men wrote it all, and other men voted on what books to include, and still other men voted on which books they liked when it schismed.
As for infallibility, I do respect Pope John XXIII’s remarks: “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible’. Essentially, a refutation of infallibility. How can one do that if you’re not sure there aren’t going to be any hot revelations coming down the God-pipeline?
Yes, your morality is also subjective. We’ve beat around the bush on that. Subjective does not necessarily mean ‘correct’. Some individuals such as sociopaths will think it’s moral to murder. So we have a majority consensus on many moral issues and have laws in place and by and large, those laws don’t vary all that much throughout much of the world, although penalties do, say, for theft and murder.
I’m calling morality subjective because there are many different moralities, and which one is practiced depends on the individual, their beliefs, and their upbringing and experiences. Playing word games and saying I’m making an ‘objective’ statement that people are ‘subjective’ doesn’t even make any sense; it may SOUND logical, but neglects the reality of us being inherently subjective.
If you don’t believe that, ask 10 different people to describe the same event. Write them down and compare them, John. If you probe them on morality, you’ll likely get similar answers to ‘cut and dry’ questions like is it okay to kill.. but if you ask if it’s okay to kill in war, you’ll surely get different answers if sample size is even modest in size… ask if abortion is acceptable? And how far into a pregnancy? Or ask if it’s ‘fair’ for one person to earn or have 10 times what another has, or 100 times, or 1000 times. And you’ll get different answers. Same if you ask if it’s okay to kill in war. So that is a good demonstration that different individuals have or hold to different subjective moralities. The idea the morality may be subjective, may be disagreeable to you, but even if one believes that morality was handed down by a God, the interpreation of the morality, is still a subjective process, making its implementation, subjective morality. No one can agree there is an objective morality because you can’t prove it; there’s no evidence for one.
Even if I follow some dogmatic morality, it’s just someone else’s subjective morality AND I still have the subjective action of choosing WHICH ONE AND WHAT PARTS OF IT to follow (interpretation). Nothing you’ve said to the contrary on this is convincing. If revelation told us how to choose… then we’d have no muslisms… or maybe no Christians?
Our nature is subjective — we are individuals — we don’t have a group consciousness. As I stated before, it is impossible to objectively prove many things — even basics — I cannot prove I’m not in a simulation. It isn’t possible to ‘prove’ objective reality or that these people exist outside of my mind. Nor is it ever even theoretically possible. So I am taking for granted some axioms such as reality exists independently of my perception of it.
My statements on morality make no sense? Morality based upon majority consensus makes more sense to me, then Biblical morality which you selectively follow. Morality, clearly, can exist without Christianity and without philosophers; tribes in far flung parts of the world have/had systems of morality. Research work done at Yale’s infant cognition center indicates babies are born with an innate sense of justice or morality. This is not surprising since cooperation is an advantage for humans. Though it would contradict man’s nature being inherently sinful.
Circular thinking? It isn’t exactly circular, but where is the reasoning behind ‘God Exists’? Or ‘The Christian God is the one true God’, ‘The Bible is True’, ‘But only the parts I want to follow in these modern times, and that part, we shall call objective morality’?
All of us will inherently have different moralities. A sociopath will think it is fine to murder; they are obviously outliers. But if we want to live together in a society, which has benefits, then there must be rules. And morality has developed over time to allow us to live together peacably. There is generally consensus on basics such as killing and stealing — although even stealing, there are differences — e.g. some believe in communal property. It is difficult to make a case for an objective morality when people have such variegated beliefs even on basics like theft and murder. And making a case for one handed down to us by a God is equally problematic.
What you say about choosing a religion doesn’t make a lot of sense; all of these religions change; people change them; PEOPLE are the schismatics that change them; PEOPLE convene to decide what Holy Books are to be canonized, which are heretical, and which heretics to burn at Ye Old Stake, which heretics to dig up & burn their remains for being heretics, etc.
I never claimed bodily urges are right.
Cafeteria Catholics: First, Catholicism itself CHANGES CONSTANTLY. The priest used to issue the sermons in Latin, facing the alter, not the congregation. Then boom-presto-bango-changeo-Vatican II. You used to not be allowed to publish the Bible in the vernacular (numerous flip-flops on that). Then, presto-boomo-bango-Luther-Reformation-Schism and now you can read it. There used to be a banned book list for a couple hundred years now BOOMO-BANGO-PRESTO-WHAMMO-banned books list canceled. Jews didn’t have a valid covenant according to the High Priest of Pedophile Protection Inc. until Vatican II’s doctrine of nostra aetate — BOOM-BANGO-PRESTO-DEVELOPING DOCTRINE — you have VERY little understanding of Catholic church history, simply making a statement that the Church rules cannot be changed, demonstrates this. The Church is universally against birth control, even in poor nations where the children will starve.
Just like usury — for that, you used to go directly to HELL, NO PASSING GO. That’s why only Jews could charge interest and became moneylenders (the Bible allowed them to charge interest, but ONLY to non-Jews! Haha. I LOVE religion! And THAT is one of the reasons that to this day, there are many Jews in banking). And why the Catholics let a few survive under Christendumb/dom. The lame-ass apologetics for that one is the changing meaning of ‘usury’. The bible is clear, ANY usury is verboten. Again, MAJOR change there. Why? Because we need interest for modern capitalistic society to survive. Nobody liked moneylenders in ancient times and that view predated and was absorbed into Christianity (it’s called syncretism, John). Obviously, the change to allow NON-catholics entry into Paradise is a MAJOR SUPER-SIZED change as noted previously.
I’ve already cited major instances of ‘rule changes’ or ‘developing doctrine’ to put it politely. And Catholicism is hardly unique in that regard.
You DID NOT explain the slavery question to my satisfaction, or why it was moral to kill your slaves, or why slavery wasn’t acceptable anymore despite being sanctioned in the Bible. If and when you can provide a reasonable explanation I’ll drop it. Same for killing apostates and disobedient children.
As far as Catholic objectors, the Society of St. Pius X comprises those who disagree with Vatican II’s latest change-o-rama in the early 1960’s. As for the literalists Christians, those I’ve known, have been mostly Southern Baptists but there are certainly many other denominations that believe that horses~~~ in the US; in contrast, [Biblical] literalism is nearly unheard of in Europe. See Ham, Ken and the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark exhibit! As for literalism in Catholicism, they pick and choose what to believe with man made-up Church teachings taking highest precedence, then the Bible. Once scientific inquiry proves a truth claim is bulls~~~; then it’s time to halt the burning at the stake and inquisitions and backpedal a bit — heliocentrism being but one example. Despite what you’ve said, heliocentrism was declared formally heretical in 1616. Heretical means it was against formal church teachings, John. In these overly lengthy posts I have outlined only a few of the many reversals.In modern times, there is no persecution for not being a Christian. The Church no longer has the power to conduct inquisitions, though it still wields considerable wealth and political influence. The Church still has a lot of land, but much was converted to investments when the 1/3 of Italy it owned, was sold in (as I recall) the 1870’s.
Your version makes no sense and infinity isn’t real.
Not to go back to the beginning but it’s really simple. First law of thermodynamics Conservation of Energy: Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. In other words energy is infinite. So are several other universal truths: gender, polarity, rhythm, vibration, cause and effect, all of these concepts happen to be infinite in nature as well (not necessarily dependent upon the existence of a material universe). From this we can derive that universe is infinite and engenders infinite possibility. Yes, infinite possibility means everyone is right at some point some time somewhere. For example, I can say that we predetermined before the creation of the material universe that we wanted free will; predetermination of chaos. I can say that when god said let there be light, the expression of his will was the big bang that created the universe and that science and god are one in the same. Science is how god works in the material universe. Because of the infinite nature of the universe I am right on both accounts.
I’m an Aetheist, having chosen such a belief through logic. At risk of sounding like a special snowflake, I am more on the side of transtheism, or the belief that the existance/non-existance of a god is irrelevant to one’s life.
And this guy is right also. This whole argument is moot you will either be good or be an bad, but even those are not universal truths and are subject to contextual and circumstantial fallacies.
Sorry to double post but I muffed up it was Beware the Lamiae that said infinity wasn’t real not John Doe. Bad quote skills my bad.
Wow This is interesting..I have not had time to follow this properly and contribute, but found this about Atheism…I have faith that I consider unshakable and rightfully mine period..I am not arming the opposition because I claim no enemies except the institutions that are designed to put me into financial servitude.. (debt slavery)… Being open minded and researching for myself I am just sharing what I find.. These are not my words so don’t reply with Harpomason wrote bla bla bla…
BARE-FISTED ATHEISM
Atheism has probably existed for as long as the concept of god. But in the modern era* in particular, most atheists have kept on their velvet gloves in expressing their atheism, remaining what Max Stirner called “pious atheists.” While rejecting any universal basis for such ideas, they’ve continued to uphold the concept of moral order and its corollary, the rule of the general–usually called “the greater good”–over the particular, of the universal over the individual. Sadly, anarchist atheists are rarely any better. This becomes evident in the frequency with which far too many call upon a supposed inherent goodness in human beings to justify their rejection of both god and state. And herein lies the problem – the need that even rebels and revolutionaries feel to justify themselves and their rejection of the ruling order.
Fortunately though, there have been atheists who felt no need to sugarcoat the full significance of what the absence of god means. They have expressed a fierce, bare-fisted atheism that made no attempt to salvage the idea of a moral order or a general “greater good”. Thus, in my opinion, their atheistic ideas have far more to offer anarchists than do those of atheists who promoted a “moral atheism”.–even when the latter are anarchists. How so? Well, the idea of a moral order brings with it the idea of universal rules of conduct that should apply to all, and thus the idea of the need of some permanent, established framework to arbitrate these rules as they work out in daily life. To put it more bluntly, from the idea of moral order, laws and state institutions follow.
But once we reject the idea of a moral order, of the rule of the general over the particular, there is no longer any justification for anything; each of us becomes completely responsible for her or himself, and that is frightening to almost anyone, but particularly to those who are out to win others over to their cause. Here is where we can spot the failure of so many atheists and anarchists. They continue to be believers with a faith to promote, rather than being truly faithless. And this loss of justifications scares the s~~~ out of them – and so they back away from the conclusions that the bare-fisted atheists embrace.As a bare-fisted atheist, I reject all gods and oppose all theists of any sort. But I also oppose all of the pious atheists, who with the velvet gloves of their moral order sneak god back in through the back door.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Harpo: Of the atheists I’ve known, some are liberal, some conservative, a few libertarian, and none anarchist. I’ve known a handful of anarcho-capitalists in my lifetime; similarly, I’ve met Christians who are liberal, others conservative, and some libertarian.
I don’t believe institutions put us into debt-slavery; we do, through conspicuous consumerism. Maybe advertising and jealousy tempt us into debt, but we are free actors and can reject it. By living modestly, in an older house that’s paid off and driving a 6 year old car, I stay debt free. And avoiding special cupcakes that love to shop, of course, helps in that regard. This is generally not regarded as a ‘glamarous’ lifetyle, or something one should aspire to.
Is holding the welfare of others above your own actually GOOD? I would argue that communism attempted to do this; there was rampant corruption, a low standard of living, and fear and terror. On the other hand, when individuals FREELY enter into communities, they can realize that sort of lifestyle (I’m not talking about most modern ‘cults’ but visionary Faith communities such as the Shakers which held property communally, and had radical ideas about equality of labor, gender, and race. I tend to favor small government, with lots of free-association entities such as that — so YOU can choose how YOU want to live. I find the Shakers fascinating and have stayed in Shakertown and visited the museum and learned about their history.
Many extremely generous philanthropists (Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc) have been atheists; thus, I am skeptical that charity is a trait existing only in the religious or ONLY among atheists…
Why must morals be universal when values are not universal?
Certainly there exist, what might be termed, ‘proselytizing atheists’. Some for fame, some for money, some because they’re passionate about their (dis)belief, others due to insecurity. Let’s call it the great DEcommission to DEconvert? Haha
I’d argue there are confrontational atheists and non-confrontational atheists. Ones that do not volunteer up why they’re atheists and why you should be too, politely keeping beliefs to themselves, and then there are the ones like me and BTL, ‘confrontational’ or ‘proselytizing’ asses that want to deconvert everybody 🙂 I’ve made some disparaging comments about faith on here and I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.
Scrotimere: There are real infinities in the physical universe such as a singularity at the heart of a black hole. But its not a ‘naked’ infinity, we can’t observe it outside its event horizon. Conservation of energy doesn’t say it’s infinite; there is a finite amount of energy and matter in the universe. Whether the universe will expand forever, now THAT is a more difficult question. Some theories of causality call for ‘many universes’ with different outcomes.
@frankone: It says that energy is with out beginning or end (created or destroyed), energy is infinite. There may be a measurable amount of mass available for conversion into energy but energy is infinite. There may as well be a limit to the gravitational power a black produces, in turn, this could limit the size of the visible universe. However, energy is still infinite. The universe will keep expanding because space is infinite. There is no wall or outside of the universe, it’s a Cartesian plane and all we can do is change the scale to view the graph. String theory is probably the most accurate description of universal framework, our universe is just a proton or quark or boson particle when viewed from another universe. Vice-verse when we examine these infinitesimally small particles there’s a good chance that’s what a universe looks like, again infinite nature engenders infinite possibility.
I look at all these posts and decided to try something different, or get back to what I should have been doing: simplicity. I will try to respond to a point in 1-3 sentences. Will it work? Who knows.
John, the question of technology, was whether resources were better directed towards witch doctors, priests, and Imams, or to human material development. And that is another question you dodged. Does praying for people and training more priests improve human welfare, or improving crop yields so man is less prone to starvation?
We don’t have to limit ourselves to either. We can have both and need both. And for the record there is a shortage of priests, a larger focus on the material sciences, and we still have starvation in many parts of the globe.
In the case of Christianity under specific discussion, the persecutions of Jews and others, set civilization BACK. I also made an argument that a single dominant religion tends to lead to corrupt social orders, whether that religion be Roman Catholicism or Islam, among others.
And Athiestic Communism done the same (in regards to the first and second point).
As for technology being finitely limited, yes, but as I type this in my temperature-controlled home, I am communicating across vast distances instantly to numerous individuals I’ll never even meet in person… Something not possible even a few decades ago. If we want to live forever in Paradise, would a better approach be to spend resources on life extension research that may lead to real and tangible improvements, even if not immortality, or to pray and read and follow ancient holy books (after, of course, picking which one is Twooooo (True) by divine personal revelation/diceroll/whichever Church has the best music/or similar Advanced Methods)?
And religion has not hindered or stopped those. In many respects it is fundamentally neutral. With that being said, young people kill themselves all the time even when they “have it all”, so one cannot assume material benefits lead to paradise.
The Soviet Union was not a transparent society with a free media. Part of the reason for persecuting religions there, was the corrupt Orthodox church was in league and deeply enmeshed with the corrupt autocratic Bolshevik regieme that was overthrown by the corrupt communist regieme. You leave a lot of history out of your responses.
So everyone, religious and irreligious is corrupt. What is the point?
The [Orthodox] Church owned a significant portion of the land in Russia, which was part of the reason for the 1917 revolution. . . And Orthodoxy wasn’t ‘banned’; initially after the 1917 revolution, many bishops were executed, but when the Nazis invaded Stalin got in league with the Church and there was a revitalization (two corrupt Church & State regiemes in league with one another, just like Putin & Orthodoxy today!), later, under Khruschev, they cracked down a bit again, but with more jailings than killings, and still thousands of Orthodox churches remained open for business (err, ‘worship’).
Correct, any Christianity which disagreed with communist teachings was eradicated and replaced with a business.
On the one hand, you say we must have Christianity to be moral; yet I have noted predominately Christian countries, that have more crime and corruption, than non-Christian countries. They seem to be doing fine without any priests providing objective morality whilst molesting young boys or covering up underlings engaging in same.
The European Union (with sweden in the forefront) is leading world wide in regards to rape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden
In an age of secular government what Christian governments are you comparing to exactly?
Yes, I regard Churches as businesses, but in surveys, most Americans identify themselves as Christians.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm > and most do not go to church (with upwards of 50%+ lying and saying they do.
I don’t know why you keep bringing totalitarian regiemes into this discussion;
Simple: they are not theocracies and you claim theocracies are the cause of corruption.
Most faith-based systems spell out ethics and ‘rules’ which are then selectively followed. We’ve already discussed stoning people, slavery, and killing apostates and disobedient children as it relates to Christianity.
And for the hundredth time I explained those. Can you point out (for the sake of me being able to express a thought)
how and where I was not clear enough?‘Faith’ means: ‘strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.’ — and so, this scheme for morality, differs considerably than one in which you follow a specific rulebook written ~1900 years ago (Bible), along with all the extra made-up rules of the Magisteria over the last two millenia.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith >Don’t be picky in how you define something. “A strong belief or
trust in someone or something” is also faith and defined as such.If you instead go by the definition of faith as ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something.’ this subjective morality doesn’t meet the faith definition either, since it isn’t claiming infallibility. You can certainly disagree with atheism or agnosticism, but similarly, calling them a ‘faith’ is ridiculous.
I never claimed a subjective morality was a faith but rather a statement of objective truth and objective truths (by
there very nature claim to be inerrent (infallible). Athiesm and Agnosticism is
a result of placing too much faith in oneself.Religion is defined as ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.’ — that’s a typical definition. So saying ‘religion is unavoidable’ is also nonsense.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion> “An interest, belief, or activity that is very important to a person
or group”. Don’t be p~~~ed at me, I didn’t make these definitions up.Following a dogma? Ah, no. Dogma is a set of beliefs that one doesn’t question.
And you have never questioned skepticism?
‘Sympathy, education, social ties and needs’ is fluid and individualistic; not accepting morality from an authority like a Priest.
So you replace the priest with a secular humanist teacher, how is that less oppressive? Also you are pressing
values upon others with this statement, yet claim that when someone else does it (particulary religious) it is wrong.
Circular thinking?Christian God says to kill the apostate; I would disagree with this, and help the apostate; your view, is to selectively ignore the command since it’s no longer applicable by your arbitrary standards of reading God’s will of when/whether to follow commandments.
In regards to Apostalate killing: Jesus said “he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
In regards to helping the
apostate: they are an apostate because they refuse help not because they were not given in. http://www.openbible.info/topics/correcting_a_brotherIt’s in my interest that everyone be allowed to practice their religion, or lack thereof, freely — since, one day the Pope-led mob may go back to burning witches and apostates
The greater majority of witch hunts were not Catholic. It was not promoted, and I have stated in the above post
about this. But I am sure this statement goes against “your interest”.I argued against mindlessly following a creed to achieve a reward/punishment in the afterlife (which, after all, is PRECISELY the rational self-interest you just argued AGAINST) and FOR thinking for yourself.
You argue against reward/punishment yet all I am doing is acknowledging that for every action (both moral and non-moral)
there are consequences. It is unavoidable and “rational self-thinking” is just a smoke screen to ignore another
reward punishment model.Finally, you keep making claims about circular logic. There is nothing circular about defining your own morality.
If making up my own morality was the right (moral) thing to do, and I did not do that then by default I would be
immoral. You have no clue what you are talking about, there is no shame in admitting it.Rational self interest means acting in ways that will maximize your self interest.
But is self interest really rational? Who are you to place yourself above others, or who am I to do that? Rational
self interest is just smokescreen language for idolizing oneself.And equally incapable of providing a rational, convincing defense of God’s immoral behavior and actions within the Bible.
The moral laws were given for humans to deal with humans. Jesus (as both human man and God) never broke any of the laws.
You cannot claim God is immoral and your evidence for this is very lacking.In my view, scientific inquiry and technological development are a much better use of human resources than giving money to the Church so it can buy more land/investments and control more people.
And modern feminist promoting industry does not do this but even worse? Do you really want me to go there? Hell, the
U.S does this.The Church, by persecuting non-believers, schismatics, and dissenters, has not furthered the sort of free inquiry which results in innovation or vibrant socieities.
And the modern industrial complex is the better answer? It is not theocratic at all, but created by “rational self
thinkers.”I grant it has reduced this persecution significantly — it can’t get away with it anymore — but ONLY because its temporal power has declined tremendously over the last several centuries.
And the persecution done by secular only governments makes the church persecutions seem non existent. Oh wait, somehow
you will try to rationalize that these governments were somehow “religious”. The USSR used Orthodoxy as a state
controlled medium (I knew men who came from it) not vice versa, so don’t try to “rationalize” that away.I’d rather have individual philosophers competing and arguing with one another on how to use technology, than an opaque, hierachial organization with its own interests, with no competing counter-views (remember the ‘ole Banned Book List (‘Index Librorum Prohibitorum’) brought to you by the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
And where is the Vatican’s opinion being honored now a days in secular government policy? My point is you want to replace a hiearchal theocracy with a hiearcharchial industrial oligarchy. Complete freedom in a society is impossible, people will always want more and
they will always be discontent.Please, read and study the history of Bruno.
Save me the dramatic semantics, you already know I will point to secular industry driven governments being not only worse but also
completely irrational and profit driven. So with that being said, when one
looks at the evidence of all governments both religious and non what (according to your standards) goverment is there that
has not performed a persecution in some form? What so no government is better?I made an argument for a society in which individuals can express their beliefs without persecution and death.
All democracies, historically speaking, ended up as totalitarian societies. So in many respects you are a minority as
free speach is not a universal desire, nor completely just in somecases. For example you would have to eventually silence anti democratic
groups if they began swaying the government to a totalitarian one.. (At the risk of adding another sentence) You have no clue about people at all
if you think people really want the same thing you want, if anything you are unjust and oppressive according to the
opinions of others a (and for the record you have no rational argument other than a “I want/feel” one.)Playing word games and saying I’m making an ‘objective’ statement that people are ‘subjective’ doesn’t even make any sense; it may SOUND logical, but neglects the reality of us being inherently subjective. If you don’t believe that, ask 10 different people to describe the same event.
Who is playing word games now? You start with asking people about describing morality (not murdering, committing adultery
lying, etc.) to describing an observed event. Not committing sexual intercourse with another man’s wife, is not
committing intercourse with another mans wife, it is not a subjective interpretation as you want it to be.The larger question in the persecution of Galileo is whether a religious authority should be able to judge ideas and dictate what is published.
And I explained that already, logically speaking Gallileo did lack evidence regardless of what government would have
judged him. He was not allowed to sway the opinion of a populace with a theory until the theory was proven. He did
not do that and ignored all government facets in promoting it.If you read the Bible and verses regarding the firmament, stopping the sun, etc you will understand the authors did not have even a rudimentary understanding of science.
With what we understand about quantum mechanics, dark matter, astronomical movements, etc. I am not anxious to rule
anything out. As a matter of fact, it would be illogical to do so as science is only starting to point as the
number of possibilities there are. In regards to the firmament “opening up” is equivalent to artistically saying the
sky opened up (this is a philosophical problem you are dealing with not a literal one.).Cafeteria Catholics: First, Catholicism itself CHANGES CONSTANTLY.
Certain core tennets do not. You are mistaken infallibility of certain statements (validity of sacraments, moral laws [ten
commandments, birth control, etc) which how they are expressed. In regards to the mass as an example, the traditional
mass was never gotten rid off nor declared wrong, so certain things do not change.
And we will bookmark that there, as I have to go. I will start of from here next.I am finding I have other things I need to do than to get into debates over things that need experiential reality to settle, not some refined argument.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.
Just like usury — for that, you used to go directly to HELL, NO PASSING GO. That’s why only Jews could charge interest and became moneylenders (the Bible allowed them to charge interest, but ONLY to non-Jews! Haha. I LOVE religion! And THAT is one of the reasons that to this day, there are many Jews in banking). And why the Catholics let a few survive under Christendumb/dom. The lame-ass apologetics for that one is the changing meaning of ‘usury’. The bible is clear, ANY usury is verboten.
You say that the scriptures said Jews were allowed to charge interest to non Jews then say the scriptures forbade usury period. I could go on with a witty retort, but I think the prior sentence speaks for itself. For a “rational” man you seem very emotional about this.
Why? Because we need interest for modern capitalistic society to survive. Nobody liked moneylenders in ancient times and that view predated and was absorbed into Christianity (it’s called syncretism, John).
Save me the emotionally charged slander and pull yourself together, you are coming off as a “hater”.
Obviously, the change to allow NON-catholics entry into Paradise is a MAJOR SUPER-SIZED change as noted previously. I’ve already cited major instances of ‘rule changes’ or ‘developing doctrine’ to put it politely.
And I already covered this, several times actually in the above posts. But I get it, you are a subjectivist (as you admitted to) so by default you HAVE to interpret the truth as you want it to be.
You DID NOT explain the slavery question to my satisfaction, or why it was moral to kill your slaves, or why slavery wasn’t acceptable anymore despite being sanctioned in the Bible.
If I explained it too satisfy you then I would be making an argument for emotional bias, so in many respects I does not matter if I do or do not give a satisfactory argument. You say it was moral to kill the slaves but exodus 21:20: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished” (pick any translation).
http://www.compellingtruth.org/slavery-New-Testament.html Here is some more info on the slavery topic. You seem focused on the slavery thing, yetmany of the requirements of what it means to be a slave (under a Hebrew in the old testament) do not fit under your definition of slavery as many had to be let go after a period of time, a certain respect was to be given to them, they were not allowed to be beaten to death, upon leaving they were to be given a gift, slavery was not mandatory, etc.
“if you can gain your freedom avail yourself the opportunity”. 1 Corinthians 7 21-24.
The simple truth is that in this world we are all subject to someone in someway and we can convince ourselves all we want that we are “our own men” but at the end of the day you either need your boss or need your customers in order to survive. In some respects slavery, in this world, is unavoidable.
As far as Catholic objectors, the Society of St. Pius X comprises those who disagree with Vatican II’s latest change-o-rama in the early 1960’s. As for the literalists Christians, those I’ve known, have been mostly Southern Baptists but there are certainly many other denominations that believe that horses~~~ in the US; in contrast, [Biblical] literalism is nearly unheard of in Europe. See Ham, Ken and the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark exhibit!
And the same argument can be made for any religion, philosophy, etc. that there are those who agree and those who disagree. You seem to be arguing that because some people do not agree with a statement that there is no moral truth and everything is subjective but you yourself are deeming these men as immoral meaning that there is some concrete moral truths. The honest truth is that you have no rational philosophical model of justice or morality, so what do you know about right or wrong? If everything is subjective, then according to you these men are doing the right thing.
As for literalism in Catholicism, they pick and choose what to believe with man made-up Church teachings taking highest precedence, then the Bible. Once scientific inquiry proves a truth claim is bulls~~~; then it’s time to halt the burning at the stake and inquisitions and backpedal a bit — heliocentrism being but one example. Despite what you’ve said, heliocentrism was declared formally heretical in 1616. Heretical means it was against formal church teachings, John.
And in many respects heliocentrism is still wrong as the mayans/Aztecs had a more accurate calendar then we did and they are not heliocentric or geocentric. And for brevity here is more information on Geocentricism and Catholicism: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=744836
But once we reject the idea of a moral order, of the rule of the general over the particular, there is no longer any justification for anything; each of us becomes completely responsible for her or himself, and that is frightening to almost anyone, but particularly to those who are out to win others over to their cause.
Morality is inevitable and is inherently intertwined with the nature of man. To reject the idea of a moral order and claim it leads to personal responsibility would be to great of an assumption and also contradictory the personal who lacks personal responsibility would now be considered immoral (not acting correctly). Also, rebelling against an order (moral order in this form) is a cause that claims to be just as it eliminates a perceive restriction in some form.
As a bare-fisted atheist, I reject all gods and oppose all theists of any sort. But I also oppose all of the pious atheists, who with the velvet gloves of their moral order sneak god back in through the back door.
A few weeks ago you believed in a diety (or something), this week you claim atheism. The only opposition you seem to be facing is yourself.
Is holding the welfare of others above your own actually GOOD? I would argue that communism attempted to do this; there was rampant corruption, a low standard of living, and fear and terror. On the other hand, when individuals FREELY enter into communities, they can realize that sort of lifestyle (I’m not talking about most modern ‘cults’ but visionary Faith communities such as the Shakers which held property communally, and had radical ideas about equality of labor, gender, and race. I tend to favor small government, with lots of free-association entities such as that — so YOU can choose how YOU want to live. I find the Shakers fascinating and have stayed in Shakertown and visited the museum and learned about their history.
For the sake of clarity, I am assuming you are arguing for libertarianism (in some form or another). If communism actually held the “other above oneself” then how could it be corrupt? Communism placed faith in that man would act justly and there is no evidence that all men behave in such a manner. You argue for a society that one can choose how they want to live as long as it does not infringe on others but because everyones morals are subjective (according to you) eventually they will infringe on others as one man’s “positive” will be another’s “negative”.
Take for example one man wants to smoke weed and the other doesn’t want even the smell in his area. They are both neighbors? What to do? There can be no courts because eventually that would infringe upon certain freedoms of some people over others.
Or take a minor example, one man goes to a church that rings church bells in the morning and the person next to the church does not like the bells. Who is in the wrong? The man who is cranky and annoyed or the church bells alerting someone of a service? Either way someones “freedom” is suppressed as they are not getting what they want. The cranky old man cannot get his silence. The church cannot alert the locals of a service.
Or take another example property rights. You want to own property, but you need government to give you those rights, but you deny any larger authoritarian system that tells you what to do with your property, but you deny the authoritarian government because you want property, but you need an authoritarian government in order to possess property: and so on and so forth the circular argument goes.
Many extremely generous philanthropists (Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc) have been atheists; thus, I am skeptical that charity is a trait existing only in the religious or ONLY among atheists…
Andrew Carnegie under paid his workers and put them in poor working conditions until the unions came along and put a stop to
it. He, in many respects got rich through exploitation of the poor. The mills were constantly known for there dangers
(serious injuries and deaths), low pay, 12 hours a day 7 days a week, no breaks, only 1 day off a year (the fourth of
July), then you have the Strike on Homestead mill in which many of those workers were gunned down.Should I go on?
Bill Gates is a huge funder of Common Core (which definitely puts and authoritarian role in education and has plenty
of its own issues. The Gates foundations “was described as a shell for tax avoidance by philanthropist and accounting expert, Sheldon Drobny. Techrights has collected evidence that shows the same and will organize it here. Through the foundation, Bill, Melinda and Microsoft maintain pharmaceutical patent investments, tobacco investments, investments in alcoholic beverages, petroleum investments, investments in experimental and controversial crops, and even investments in news/media. Gates need not even pay tax, though he keeps control of the assets and uses that control to influence private and public policy. Money talks and politicians can in turn be persuaded to buy from Microsoft. This dependence/lock-in cascades down to businesses and homes, creating a revenue stream that would not exist in a free market. Gates is also able to bring public money to himself through energy and public health policy. As Gates has diversified, his corrupting influence has spread to other portions of the economy. ”
http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_CritiqueShould I go on?
To be frank, frankone, after all your preaching your views are hypocritical and incongruent.
Why must morals be universal when values are not universal?
But according to you everyone is selfish, meaning that is a universal value. Those, according to you, that are “rational”
are moral while those that are “irrational” are immoral. Is there something I am missing here?I am finding I have other things I need to do than to get into debates over things that need experiential reality to settle, not some refined argument.
But you just join the debate with your comment……….
I think I understand what’s going on here. These guys are upset with religion, not the gods. Again it’s pretty simple if you think it through. @frankone, you obviously sense that the Bible is not the word of any god. It is the second hand word of gods through fallible man. Religion is simply the traditions of man preformed on a regular basis. I will concede that the Church (especially the Catholic) has done everything in their power for the past 1700 years to squash spirituality. In many cases the Greek translation into English is rubbish. To even get a glimpse at what the Old Testament was trying to explain you must dig up a Hebrew Bible (yes Jesus was a Hebrew and the first Bible was written in Aramaic) and a Strong’s Bible reader (which has the numerical value of the letters and the breakdown of every possible meaning there of) You will find that the Bible you find there is a world apart from the accepted Greek translation.
So here’s my philosophy. Due to the principle of conservation of energy, there must needs be an infinite number and types of energy in the universe. One of those “energies” must encompass all energies excited to the highest type (a.k.a. infinity/god/black hole) . Due to the fact that religious institutions are only out for power and control (just like insurance companies in the USA) I reject them.
I don’t believe institutions put us into debt-slavery; we do, through conspicuous consumerism. Maybe advertising and jealousy tempt us into debt, but we are free actors and can reject it.
Free action (free will) however does not change the fact that god is within me, and by me and my god I will do my best to reject the material universe as a mundane and inconsequential amount of time when compared to the infinite expanse of the universe and my spirit. Atheism is just ignorance, just because you are ignorant of death you won’t live forever. Just because you ignore god and satiate your ego doesn’t damn you eternally to hell (sorry Catholics, not scared of hell anymore) because this mundane universe is hell. “Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.” Rev. 12:12. Rather you will just be stuck here on earth to live over and over again until you realize: “There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This also I have seen that it is from the hand of God.” Ecc 2:24. Basically we are here to be satisfied with a job well done, a life well spent, a world well traveled. Easy peasy lemon squeezy
FrankOne wrote:
Just like usury — for that, you used to go directly to HELL, NO PASSING GO. That’s why only Jews could charge interest and became moneylenders (the Bible allowed them to charge interest, but ONLY to non-Jews! Haha. I LOVE religion! And THAT is one of the reasons that to this day, there are many Jews in banking). And why the Catholics let a few survive under Christendumb/dom. The lame-ass apologetics for that one is the changing meaning of ‘usury’. The bible is clear, ANY usury is verboten.You say that the scriptures said Jews were allowed to charge interest to non Jews then say the scriptures forbade usury period. I could go on with a witty retort, but I think the prior sentence speaks for itself. For a “rational” man you seem very emotional about this.
John, if you’re interested in changing moral doctrine in the Catholic Church, this is a good reference: Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings — some of it can be read on Google Books — it’s from Paulist press (a Catholic entity). I’ve been reading it and there were certainly some changes I haven’t even discussed. So it isn’t as though Catholic scholars are denying these changes.
My statement should have read halakhah, the applicable Jewish law, prohibits interest ONLY on loans to Jews, the scripture, prohibits it altogether to both Jews and Christians. So that WAS an error on my part.
If you read about loans and interest in Judaism, on Wikipedia or other sources, this will make more sense. This is one of the reasons Jews pursued banking, as they were permitted to charge interest, whereas, the Christians, were not. The scripture, of course, universally applicable to Christians and Jews, completely prohibits interest. The Paulist Press link above goes into great detail in how Usury or loans with interest was a ‘mortal sin’ for 400 years until the Catholic Church flippity flopped. Mortal sins are the more serious sins resulting in separation from God unless penance is made. So I most certainly stand by my statement of the flip flop on usury — the reason this is a ‘big’ one is because it was a MORTAL sin, now, it’s NO SIN AT ALL IN CATHOLICISM.
FrankOne wrote:
Why? Because we need interest for modern capitalistic society to survive. Nobody liked moneylenders in ancient times and that view predated and was absorbed into Christianity (it’s called syncretism, John).Save me the emotionally charged slander and pull yourself together, you are coming off as a “hater”.
If Capitalism is so bad maybe the Roman Catholic Church should divest itself of the billions of dollars of assets it holds (approximately 10-15% of the Italian stock market), vast real estate holdings, etc and enlarge charities? That would certainly avoid all those pesky Vatican bank scandals too.
And I already covered this, several times actually in the above posts. But I get it, you are a subjectivist (as you admitted to) so by default you HAVE to interpret the truth as you want it to be.
Professional apologists (a.k.a. ‘theologians’) don’t deny the change; they try to label it as developing doctrine. Flip flopping is ‘fleshing out the details’.
If I explained it too satisfy you then I would be making an argument for emotional bias, so in many respects I does not matter if I do or do not give a satisfactory argument. You say it was moral to kill the slaves but exodus 21:20: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished” (pick any translation). Here is some more info on the slavery topic. You seem focused on the slavery thing, yetmany of the requirements of what it means to be a slave (under a Hebrew in the old testament) do not fit under your definition of slavery as many had to be let go after a period of time, a certain respect was to be given to them, they were not allowed to be beaten to death, upon leaving they were to be given a gift, slavery was not mandatory, etc. “if you can gain your freedom avail yourself the opportunity”. 1 Corinthians 7 21-24. The simple truth is that in this world we are all subject to someone in someway and we can convince ourselves all we want that we are “our own men” but at the end of the day you either need your boss or need your customers in order to survive. In some respects slavery, in this world, is unavoidable.
You omitted the part where if they don’t die immediately it’s okay to beat them… I guess because you didn’t intend to kill them, just give ’em a harsh beating so they don’t repeat their transgressions. Why not just admit the Biblical doctrine had to be changed to mesh with modern expectations of society and individual liberty, and be done with it, rather than all this rationalization?
FrankOne wrote:
As far as Catholic objectors, the Society of St. Pius X comprises those who disagree with Vatican II’s latest change-o-rama in the early 1960’s. As for the literalists Christians, those I’ve known, have been mostly Southern Baptists but there are certainly many other denominations that believe that horses~~~ in the US; in contrast, [Biblical] literalism is nearly unheard of in Europe. See Ham, Ken and the Creation Museum and Noah’s Ark exhibit!And the same argument can be made for any religion, philosophy, etc. that there are those who agree and those who disagree. You seem to be arguing that because some people do not agree with a statement that there is no moral truth and everything is subjective but you yourself are deeming these men as immoral meaning that there is some concrete moral truths. The honest truth is that you have no rational philosophical model of justice or morality, so what do you know about right or wrong? If everything is subjective, then according to you these men are doing the right thing.
First, you said there were no individuals who didn’t believe in the latest round of change-o-rama. The existence of SSPX proves that dead wrong. I am simply stating that Catholic God’s eternal moral framework keeps changing.
FrankOne wrote:
As for literalism in Catholicism, they pick and choose what to believe with man made-up Church teachings taking highest precedence, then the Bible. Once scientific inquiry proves a truth claim is bulls~~~; then it’s time to halt the burning at the stake and inquisitions and backpedal a bit — heliocentrism being but one example. Despite what you’ve said, heliocentrism was declared formally heretical in 1616. Heretical means it was against formal church teachings, John.And in many respects heliocentrism is still wrong as the mayans/Aztecs had a more accurate calendar then we did and they are not heliocentric or geocentric. And for brevity here is more information on Geocentricism and Catholicism: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=744836
Even if it is wrong, should people be condemned to burn at the stake for believing it? Was the inquisition moral? Should it have been stopped or should it continue today? The larger issue is whether free inquiry should prevail or we should have a monolithic organization that publishes a banned book list and persecutes anyone who disagrees with it.
For the sake of clarity, I am assuming you are arguing for libertarianism (in some form or another). If communism actually held the “other above oneself” then how could it be corrupt? Communism placed faith in that man would act justly and there is no evidence that all men behave in such a manner. You argue for a society that one can choose how they want to live as long as it does not infringe on others but because everyones morals are subjective (according to you) eventually they will infringe on others as one man’s “positive” will be another’s “negative”. Take for example one man wants to smoke weed and the other doesn’t want even the smell in his area. They are both neighbors? What to do? There can be no courts because eventually that would infringe upon certain freedoms of some people over others. Or take a minor example, one man goes to a church that rings church bells in the morning and the person next to the church does not like the bells. Who is in the wrong? The man who is cranky and annoyed or the church bells alerting someone of a service? Either way someones “freedom” is suppressed as they are not getting what they want. The cranky old man cannot get his silence. The church cannot alert the locals of a service. Or take another example property rights. You want to own property, but you need government to give you those rights, but you deny any larger authoritarian system that tells you what to do with your property, but you deny the authoritarian government because you want property, but you need an authoritarian government in order to possess property: and so on and so forth the circular argument goes.
You got me, I’m libertarian. Communism can be corrupt, when the leaders don’t live up to the ideal — e.g. making money off black market trading. Opacity, single party rule and no watchdogs tend to lead to corruption. And that was often the concrete implementation of communism — especially, large nation-states. However, there are and have been voluntary communities that believe in communal property, that, in my estimation, were not corrupt in this fashion. The Shakers are but one.
There’s nothing circular about rights requiring responsibilities; if we are all to have equal ‘rights’ to life, then I cannot be allowed to kill others without cause; certainly, there are degrees of authoritarianism; at what decibel level do the bells infringe upon the neighbors rights? How much air or water pollution can I emit?
FrankOne wrote:
Many extremely generous philanthropists (Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, etc) have been atheists; thus, I am skeptical that charity is a trait existing only in the religious or ONLY among atheists…Andrew Carnegie under paid his workers and put them in poor working conditions until the unions came along and put a stop to it. He, in many respects got rich through exploitation of the poor. The mills were constantly known for there dangers (serious injuries and deaths), low pay, 12 hours a day 7 days a week, no breaks, only 1 day off a year (the fourth of July), then you have the Strike on Homestead mill in which many of those workers were gunned down. Should I go on? Bill Gates is a huge funder of Common Core (which definitely puts and authoritarian role in education and has plenty of its own issues. The Gates foundations “was described as a shell for tax avoidance by philanthropist and accounting expert, Sheldon Drobny. Techrights has collected evidence that shows the same and will organize it here. Through the foundation, Bill, Melinda and Microsoft maintain pharmaceutical patent investments, tobacco investments, investments in alcoholic beverages, petroleum investments, investments in experimental and controversial crops, and even investments in news/media. Gates need not even pay tax, though he keeps control of the assets and uses that control to influence private and public policy. Money talks and politicians can in turn be persuaded to buy from Microsoft. This dependence/lock-in cascades down to businesses and homes, creating a revenue stream that would not exist in a free market. Gates is also able to bring public money to himself through energy and public health policy. As Gates has diversified, his corrupting influence has spread to other portions of the economy. ” Should I go on? To be frank, frankone, after all your preaching your views are hypocritical and incongruent.
Underpaid? Really? So the workers could make more elsewhere? Why did they work in Carnegie’s mills then, if they were exploited? If they were undepaid, why didn’t they go elsewhere? Instead of organizing a union, why didn’t they pool their resources and open a steel mill? Underpaid relative to other free market jobs? Underpaid according to whom? Did the strikers have a right to prohibit nonunion employees from entering the plant at Homestead? Wasn’t Frick shot twice too? If the steel mills were so bad why did thousands of people voluntarily work in them? I guess it was better than their other alternatives…
You can critique the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation all you want, but investments are part of an endowment fund… You have to have a principal to be able to continue giving grants. And Berkshire isn’t throwing billions into it for no reason either… And giving away billions isn’t a tax shelter… Certainly all of these foundations want to avoid taxes. Why? Because the foundation managers believe THEY are better at choosing what to spend money on then governments. They can keep politics out of it and rely on actual metrics… This is a VERY different sort of business than a political process, such as deciding who steals (taxes) and redistributes how much from whom in the US Congress. Special interest politics, has nothing to do with outcomes or metrics. Once the author of the blog makes billions in the free market, then they can start a foundation, haha. Not. Happening.
In my lifetime the only thing I’ve seen unions put a stop to is MANUFACTURING — that’s right, plant closures, contributing to America’s decline and indebtedness. I will concede some unions played a role in improving worker safety in the early industrial revolution. Nowadays, unions mean paying someone based on how long they’ve stuck around, even if they’re lazy asses. Unions have served to make America less competitive. And of course, unions absolutely predominate in the non-competitive ultra-efficient public sector (screw Joe taxpayer, longer, harder, deeper). Think about it. Who should have more Holidays, higher pay, and better benefits and retirement outside socialist security ponzi schemes: Public sector union employees, or the people that pay their wages?
FrankOne wrote:
Why must morals be universal when values are not universal?But according to you everyone is selfish, meaning that is a universal value. Those, according to you, that are “rational” are moral while those that are “irrational” are immoral. Is there something I am missing here?
I don’t believe EVERYONE is selfish but I’d say most people are–they care more about their loved ones, than strangers. There are certainly altruists and selfless individuals too.
No. There is no God in the Abrahamic sense of the word. No one looks upon us and no one dictates our fate. Get over it! Our life begins and ends here in this Universe, on this planet. God(s) exists in our languages as a word and as a cultural phenomenom in our societies, projection of our fears; by-product of our psychological childhood. (Our Heavenly father?)
Be real and live as passionately as you could 🙂
Each in his own tongue. Some call it evolution, some call it god. Infinite forms of energy, never created or destroyed. Where did the energy come from?
John, if you’re interested in changing moral doctrine in the Catholic Church, this is a good reference: Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings — some of it can be read on Google Books — it’s from Paulist press (a Catholic entity). I’ve been reading it and there were certainly some changes I haven’t even discussed. So it isn’t as though Catholic scholars are denying these changes. My statement should have read halakhah, the applicable Jewish law, prohibits interest ONLY on loans to Jews, the scripture, prohibits it altogether to both Jews and Christians. So that WAS an error on my part. If you read about loans and interest in Judaism, on Wikipedia or other sources, this will make more sense. This is one of the reasons Jews pursued banking, as they were permitted to charge interest, whereas, the Christians, were not. The scripture, of course, universally applicable to Christians and Jews, completely prohibits interest. The Paulist Press link above goes into great detail in how Usury or loans with interest was a ‘mortal sin’ for 400 years until the Catholic Church flippity flopped. Mortal sins are the more serious sins resulting in separation from God unless penance is made. So I most certainly stand by my statement of the flip flop on usury — the reason this is a ‘big’ one is because it was a MORTAL sin, now, it’s NO SIN AT ALL IN CATHOLICISM.
Usury is “the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest” (oxford dictionary) and in that respect interest is not always usury as long as it is not extortion. Usury is extortion through high interest rate however interest itself is not (as seen in the parable of the talents) as it does not abuse the financial means of either party. There is not “flippity flop” as the catechism says (This will go over the 3 sentence requirement):
There will be no further Revelation
66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
…
Growth in understanding the faith94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:
— “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth.”
— “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience,” the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.”
— “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.”If Capitalism is so bad maybe the Roman Catholic Church should divest itself of the billions of dollars of assets it holds (approximately 10-15% of the Italian stock market), vast real estate holdings, etc and enlarge charities? That would certainly avoid all those pesky Vatican bank scandals too.
You claim the church favored captitalism in that it changed Usury laws in order to fit in with the culture, when in reality it is against capitalism and communism in different respects.
Professional apologists (a.k.a. ‘theologians’) don’t deny the change; they try to label it as developing doctrine. Flip flopping is ‘fleshing out the details’.
Doing a 180 and sorting out details are too completely different things. You should know this.
You omitted the part where if they don’t die immediately it’s okay to beat them… I guess because you didn’t intend to kill them, just give ’em a harsh beating so they don’t repeat their transgressions. Why not just admit the Biblical doctrine had to be changed to mesh with modern expectations of society and individual liberty, and be done with it, rather than all this rationalization?
We are also to respect the government in regards to civil laws (as stated in the new testament) and as “beating a slave” is illegal (nor was it a moral requirement [the actual beating] but rather a form of punishment) so there is no flip flop. Also these beatings, historically speaking, were no different then using a reed (and if you are going to argue beating is immoral as a form of punishment then you are lost in regards to human behavior and we might as well stop this conversation) Because we are to respect (not blindly submit too) governing authorities in many respects the laws in regards to slavery are guidelines to help those in prior (and in some cases modern) slave holding societies.
First, you said there were no individuals who didn’t believe in the latest round of change-o-rama. The existence of SSPX proves that dead wrong. I am simply stating that Catholic God’s eternal moral framework keeps changing.
No you misread me, as many disbelieve the Vatican’s statements (and also agree with it) but to say everything is subjective (morally speaking) because people disagree is an entirely other manner.
Even if it is wrong, should people be condemned to burn at the stake for believing it? Was the inquisition moral? Should it have been stopped or should it continue today? The larger issue is whether free inquiry should prevail or we should have a monolithic organization that publishes a banned book list and persecutes anyone who disagrees with it.
In regards to the first point, as all governments at the time were faith driven (and in many respects still are) any heresy could be interpreted (depending on the circumstance) as political subversion. The inquisition should have stopped (and in many respects has) when the church was no longer a part of secular governance and no longer held political authority. In regards to the third point the banned book list is basically a list of “un-catholic” books and the “persecutions” only took place under Catholic government so they are non existent today (however it is common sense to have a banned book listed as that is a way of saying “these thoughts are wrong” and in many respects all organizations, including mgtow, have a ban list of some form.
You got me, I’m libertarian. Communism can be corrupt, when the leaders don’t live up to the ideal — e.g. making money off black market trading. Opacity, single party rule and no watchdogs tend to lead to corruption. And that was often the concrete implementation of communism — especially, large nation-states. However, there are and have been voluntary communities that believe in communal property, that, in my estimation, were not corrupt in this fashion. The Shakers are but one. There’s nothing circular about rights requiring responsibilities; if we are all to have equal ‘rights’ to life, then I cannot be allowed to kill others without cause; certainly, there are degrees of authoritarianism; at what decibel level do the bells infringe upon the neighbors rights? How much air or water pollution can I emit?
Morality does not limit itself to property only, and even the shakers prosperity failed as it forbid marriage (in many aspects) and had to indenture kids (which means they would have had to have followed the biblical slavery model you find immoral) in order to keep there numbers up so in many respects there economic model failed in reaching is perspective value.
Also the shakers were governed under religious beliefs so in many respects they lived in a theocracy. Religion is
wrong according to you. So in many respects the shakers were wrong.If rights require responsibilities then those who thwart there responsibilities would thwart there rights, so according to this model authoritarianism is unavoidable to an immoral people (those who thwart their means to a values) and in some cases is completely moral (as all morality according to you is subjective.) .
Underpaid? Really? So the workers could make more elsewhere? Why did they work in Carnegie’s mills then, if they were exploited? If they were undepaid, why didn’t they go elsewhere? Instead of organizing a union, why didn’t they pool their resources and open a steel mill? Underpaid relative to other free market jobs? Underpaid according to whom? Did the strikers have a right to prohibit nonunion employees from entering the plant at Homestead? Wasn’t Frick shot twice too? If the steel mills were so bad why did thousands of people voluntarily work in them? I guess it was better than their other alternatives…
I like how you ignored that the people only had one day off a year and worked continual 12s the rest of it, maybe that was part of the reason the unions were formed? The truth is that Carnegie abused his workers (after all he did not practice the same lifestyle as they did)
and in many ways oppressed a people that were desperate and did not have the financial means to go elsewhere. Also,
because morality is subjective according to you, the formation of unions was the right thing to do as there is no
moral code to say there isn’t.You can critique the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation all you want, but investments are part of an endowment fund… You have to have a principal to be able to continue giving grants. And Berkshire isn’t throwing billions into it for no reason either… And giving away billions isn’t a tax shelter… Certainly all of these foundations want to avoid taxes. Why? Because the foundation managers believe THEY are better at choosing what to spend money on then governments. They can keep politics out of it and rely on actual metrics… This is a VERY different sort of business than a political process, such as deciding who steals (taxes) and redistributes how much from whom in the US Congress. Special interest politics, has nothing to do with outcomes or metrics. Once the author of the blog makes billions in the free market, then they can start a foundation, haha. Not. Happening.
Argue all you want as you claim “liberty” is the correct things yet some of the investments (common core being the
forefront) inhibit liberty in one facet or another. Face it the people you consider moral do not fit your own standards
of morality(slavery is wrong, everyone deserves equal rights, etc). Then you will take the role of an apologist, however criticize apologists elsewhere (regardless of being
right or wrong).The truth is you just want to do what you want to do, and it permeates into your moral and political philosophy.
In my lifetime the only thing I’ve seen unions put a stop to is MANUFACTURING — that’s right, plant closures, contributing to America’s decline and indebtedness. I will concede some unions played a role in improving worker safety in the early industrial revolution. Nowadays, unions mean paying someone based on how long they’ve stuck around, even if they’re lazy asses. Unions have served to make America less competitive. And of course, unions absolutely predominate in the non-competitive ultra-efficient public sector (screw Joe taxpayer, longer, harder, deeper). Think about it. Who should have more Holidays, higher pay, and better benefits and retirement outside socialist security ponzi schemes: Public sector union employees, or the people that pay their wages?
And the unions also also allowed overtime, a specific workweek, prohibited racism/sexism/religion/etc from controlling
the workplace, etc so in many respects they stopped slavery (which you deem as a complete evil). A counter argument could have been made that all imports were to be taxed so the prices balanced out,
so the unions cannot be blamed for everything. At the end of the day, without unions you have slavery through monopolies
gaining access to peoples rights, debt bondage, and various forms of slavery. For someone who wants to criticize slavery
everywhere else, you should really take a look in the philosophy mirror and examine your own ideologies because the
hypocrisy is out of control.In regards to the last question “who should have…etc.” you cannot make a moral judgement as their all morality is subjective
remember? In many respects, according to you, there is no right or wrong. So why be angry with the unions unless you
believe they are inhibiting you from achieving something you value or want? And if that is the case then you are immoral (using the
same definition or morality from the earlier posts) as you are not reaching your intended value or want through your means.In a subjective moral world, which you say it is, I am always right, Haha.
In many cases the Greek translation into English is rubbish.
I believe that is where many of the people get confused about thou shall not kill, because if I remember correctly
the english translation is closer to “not killing quietly through t he back” or something. I have to look it up. But
realistically because of how the English language continually changes a new translation should be made every 25+ years.Due to the fact that religious institutions are only out for power and control (just like insurance companies in the USA) I reject them.
I understand where you are going but this leads to a two fold problem first being that human beings are social in nature
and groups are unavoidable in one respect or another. Because of this authority is unavoidable in many respects.Second you claim that the institutions are only after power and control, and this gives power and control a negative connotations.
Too seek power and control over myself would make me just as guilty as the instituion. In reality power and control
are fundamentally neutral in nature in that they can be either good or bad however they in themselves are not good or bad.Free action (free will) however does not change the fact that god is within me, and by me and my god I will do my best to reject the material universe as a mundane and inconsequential amount of time when compared to the infinite expanse of the universe and my spirit.
One cannot condemn the material world because in some aspects it reflects the spiritual world (harmony in some places, etc.).
To condemn the physical world would be to condemn any reflection (however slight) of the spiritual world and in many
respects condemn the spiritual world itself.Just because you ignore god and satiate your ego doesn’t damn you eternally to hell (sorry Catholics, not scared of hell anymore) because this mundane universe is hell.
God does not force us to be with him. Hell is a place for people who want nothing to do with God, so in many respects
we send ourselves there. God would not be just and fair without hell, as he would be forcing us with him otherwise and
in this respect a tyrant.Basically we are here to be satisfied with a job well done, a life well spent, a world well traveled. Easy peasy lemon squeezy
And this in itself is vanity as this life is vain and these things are what compose of life, according to Solomon. “Fear
God, keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man”. (eccl 12:13 KJV)No. There is no God in the Abrahamic sense of the word. No one looks upon us and no one dictates our fate. Get over it! Our life begins and ends here in this Universe, on this planet. God(s) exists in our languages as a word and as a cultural phenomenom in our societies, projection of our fears; by-product of our psychological childhood. (Our Heavenly father?) Be real and live as passionately as you could
And there are people who are and will always believe in the Abrahamic God, get over it. Why hold them back? Be real and live as passionately
as you could.Also, no one has satisfactorily explained how energy (cannot be created or destroyed) came to be…
Usury is “the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest” (oxford dictionary) and in that respect interest is not always usury as long as it is not extortion. Usury is extortion through high interest rate however interest itself is not (as seen in the parable of the talents) as it does not abuse the financial means of either party. There is not “flippity flop” as the catechism says (This will go over the 3 sentence requirement): There will be no further Revelation 66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. … Growth in understanding the faith 94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church: — “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”; it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth.” — “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience,” the sacred Scriptures “grow with the one who reads them.” — “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.”
This definition is completely false in a Christian/theological context. The meaning of the word Usury has changed over time — this is known to anyone familiar with biblical usury. When the Catholic Church prohibited charging any interest and made doing so a MORTAL SIN (pre-Reformation), it meant charging of ANY interest. If you don’t believe that, read ‘Reforming the Morality of Usury’, or any other relevant source… This was a MAJOR issue in the Reformation, though not discussed much today. Usury (lending at any interest) was deemed immoral until the 16th century. If you want to learn more about it, read the Catholic Dictionary on Google Books. The article in ‘Crisis Magazine’ (a Christian apologetic publication) on ‘Did the Church Change Its Doctrine on Usury?’ also concedes this point on the definition… so nobody is debating that the definition changed, except you. Of course the church changed its doctrine from the Old Testament outright prohibition… Giving apologists… something to apologize about… The Crisis magazine argument is a classic, justifying it by saying our ‘understanding of money changed’. That is one I’d never heard…
This is really basic but the 2nd Lateran affirmed the usury ban. In Luke Jesus advises ‘Lend, expecting nothing in return’.
FrankOne wrote:
If Capitalism is so bad maybe the Roman Catholic Church should divest itself of the billions of dollars of assets it holds (approximately 10-15% of the Italian stock market), vast real estate holdings, etc and enlarge charities? That would certainly avoid all those pesky Vatican bank scandals too.You claim the church favored captitalism in that it changed Usury laws in order to fit in with the culture, when in reality it is against capitalism and communism in different respects.
Why the Church changed its position is certainly debatable; the changing economic conditions in the 16th century seems a plausible explanation.
The Biblical definition of usury is charging ANY interest; any further dispute of that fact, is laughable. The Church didn’t ‘change its usury laws’, as you put it, it changed its position on the morality of charging interest.
That said, interest is essential to capitalism; large purchases are made on credit. How would one purchase a car or house without interest? Or purchase heavy equipment to build a factory, if you had to accumulate all the money to make a purchase, surely economic growth would slow. And common stock is another form of usury; it is purchased with the expectation of a return on principal.
Interest against communism? Well, when the Bolsheviks took over, their first act was the abolish loans and interest altogether — which was more about populism. The Nazis also came to power abolishing interest. And debt will play into the continued decline of the US. Paying interest to oneself makes little sense, so in communism, central planners deciding how to spend money, would direct banks to lend to certain State entities, and the risk was carried by the population as a whole. In its implementation in the USSR, for savers, MODEST interest was actually paid to depositors to entice them to deposit savings.
FrankOne wrote:
Professional apologists (a.k.a. ‘theologians’) don’t deny the change; they try to label it as developing doctrine. Flip flopping is ‘fleshing out the details’.Doing a 180 and sorting out details are too completely different things. You should know this.
It’s a 180. Mortal sin then, accepted now. Look at the body of Church pronouncements against usury over hundreds of years.
Slavery: Bottom line, the Catholic Church, supposedly the holder of the Great Objective Morality, was NOT an institutional leader on abolition of slavery, THE moral issue of the ages. Indeed, some books critical of slavery were placed on the forbidden books list, remember that list John? The Church divided the issue into ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ slavery, e.g. just to enslave non-Christians. Good morals there. Bishop Bartolomé de las Casas INITIATED the transatlantic slave trade, though to be fair, he, as an individual, later repudiated slavery.
FrankOne wrote:
First, you said there were no individuals who didn’t believe in the latest round of change-o-rama. The existence of SSPX proves that dead wrong. I am simply stating that Catholic God’s eternal moral framework keeps changing.No you misread me, as many disbelieve the Vatican’s statements (and also agree with it) but to say everything is subjective (morally speaking) because people disagree is an entirely other manner.
Now, the difficult part: Are the Gnostics right, the Cathars, the Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, or the Protestants? It’s kind of a trick question because there’s no way to prove which one is right. Do you pray on it? If that worked then why doesn’t God send down some bad feelings to all those schismatics?
FrankOne wrote:
Even if it is wrong, should people be condemned to burn at the stake for believing it? Was the inquisition moral? Should it have been stopped or should it continue today? The larger issue is whether free inquiry should prevail or we should have a monolithic organization that publishes a banned book list and persecutes anyone who disagrees with it.In regards to the first point, as all governments at the time were faith driven (and in many respects still are) any heresy could be interpreted (depending on the circumstance) as political subversion. The inquisition should have stopped (and in many respects has) when the church was no longer a part of secular governance and no longer held political authority. In regards to the third point the banned book list is basically a list of “un-catholic” books and the “persecutions” only took place under Catholic government so they are non existent today (however it is common sense to have a banned book listed as that is a way of saying “these thoughts are wrong” and in many respects all organizations, including mgtow, have a ban list of some form.
Ridiculous comparison. The banned books were literally BANNED by force in the Papal States, and approval was required to publish… If it was just a friendly ‘recommended NOT to read list’, then why did they persecute Galileo for publishing his work? Most of the world’s population lives under secular governments; saying they are faith-driven when there is no State religion doesn’t add up. I’m unclear why you place ‘persecutions’ in quotes; do you feel that burning Bruno at the stake for his beliefs was moral?
Morality does not limit itself to property only, and even the shakers prosperity failed as it forbid marriage (in many aspects) and had to indenture kids (which means they would have had to have followed the biblical slavery model you find immoral) in order to keep there numbers up so in many respects there economic model failed in reaching is perspective value. Also the shakers were governed under religious beliefs so in many respects they lived in a theocracy. Religion is wrong according to you. So in many respects the shakers were wrong. If rights require responsibilities then those who thwart there responsibilities would thwart there rights, so according to this model authoritarianism is unavoidable to an immoral people (those who thwart their means to a values) and in some cases is completely moral (as all morality according to you is subjective.) .
Times change. Orphanages and other avenues for children in need of homes, certainly also impacted the Shakers ability to recruit members. Those raised in Shaker communities could leave — you could not leave a Southern plantation, so it’s rather an odd comparison to slavery, though a youth indoctrinated, would be unlikely to leave. I would hardly be joining a Shaker community, but their model is one of free association at least for adults — a VERY different model then, say, medieval Christendom. If their communities grew, perhaps leaving, would no longer be permitted. I never argued morality concerned only property rights.
FrankOne wrote:
Underpaid? Really? So the workers could make more elsewhere? Why did they work in Carnegie’s mills then, if they were exploited? If they were undepaid, why didn’t they go elsewhere? Instead of organizing a union, why didn’t they pool their resources and open a steel mill? Underpaid relative to other free market jobs? Underpaid according to whom? Did the strikers have a right to prohibit nonunion employees from entering the plant at Homestead? Wasn’t Frick shot twice too? If the steel mills were so bad why did thousands of people voluntarily work in them? I guess it was better than their other alternatives…I like how you ignored that the people only had one day off a year and worked continual 12s the rest of it, maybe that was part of the reason the unions were formed? The truth is that Carnegie abused his workers (after all he did not practice the same lifestyle as they did) and in many ways oppressed a people that were desperate and did not have the financial means to go elsewhere. Also, because morality is subjective according to you, the formation of unions was the right thing to do as there is no moral code to say there isn’t.
No one forced them to work at the mill. My point was revisionist history; the Unions blocked scabs from entering the mill. Unions have helped kill American manufacturing by making it uncompetitive. Carnegie actually implemented the 8-hr shift in 1877; then went back to 12’s at the E.T. Mill since his competitor’s didn’t follow. Homestead had some capital improvements, so some reduction in wages was justified (pay for the small fraction of total laborers comprising the skilled trades/Amalgamated Association, would be reduced — unskilled labor was prohibited from joining Amalgamated, and would be unaffected. Union members received some pay based upon output; the capital improvements increased output without union members doing any additional work or gaining any additional skills). The other unskilled hourly workers wages would remain unchanged regardless of the strike and that was the majority of the employees. What you listen to on PBS (Proletariat Broadcasting Service) or some other ‘documentary’ often doesn’t get into these sorts of critical details. Other mills were paying less for labor; a study was performed prior to the Homestead lockout. Labor strife is often not covered accurately and these sorts of details are ‘left out’ of discussions.
FrankOne wrote:
You can critique the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation all you want, but investments are part of an endowment fund… You have to have a principal to be able to continue giving grants. And Berkshire isn’t throwing billions into it for no reason either… And giving away billions isn’t a tax shelter… Certainly all of these foundations want to avoid taxes. Why? Because the foundation managers believe THEY are better at choosing what to spend money on then governments. They can keep politics out of it and rely on actual metrics… This is a VERY different sort of business than a political process, such as deciding who steals (taxes) and redistributes how much from whom in the US Congress. Special interest politics, has nothing to do with outcomes or metrics. Once the author of the blog makes billions in the free market, then they can start a foundation, haha. Not. Happening.Argue all you want as you claim “liberty” is the correct things yet some of the investments (common core being the forefront) inhibit liberty in one facet or another. Face it the people you consider moral do not fit your own standards of morality(slavery is wrong, everyone deserves equal rights, etc). Then you will take the role of an apologist, however criticize apologists elsewhere (regardless of being right or wrong). The truth is you just want to do what you want to do, and it permeates into your moral and political philosophy.
Public education — a regimented system implemented in Austria to produce good soldier robots, is not amenable to a free people? What a news flash! Common Core is just more standards — it won’t work — privatizing the system, shifting towards computer based training, and more/better vocational training is needed. Allowing anyone to teach without a ‘certificate’ or ‘degree’, and more workplace apprenticeships would be a big improvement. I don’t agree with everything these foundations wish to spend money on but they are more efficient than government… When Carnegie built libraries he expected a detailed accounting of the spending… Very different from government grants/government money with little accountability to how it is spent.
FrankOne wrote:
In my lifetime the only thing I’ve seen unions put a stop to is MANUFACTURING — that’s right, plant closures, contributing to America’s decline and indebtedness. I will concede some unions played a role in improving worker safety in the early industrial revolution. Nowadays, unions mean paying someone based on how long they’ve stuck around, even if they’re lazy asses. Unions have served to make America less competitive. And of course, unions absolutely predominate in the non-competitive ultra-efficient public sector (screw Joe taxpayer, longer, harder, deeper). Think about it. Who should have more Holidays, higher pay, and better benefits and retirement outside socialist security ponzi schemes: Public sector union employees, or the people that pay their wages?And the unions also also allowed overtime, a specific workweek, prohibited racism/sexism/religion/etc from controlling the workplace, etc so in many respects they stopped slavery (which you deem as a complete evil). A counter argument could have been made that all imports were to be taxed so the prices balanced out, so the unions cannot be blamed for everything. At the end of the day, without unions you have slavery through monopolies gaining access to peoples rights, debt bondage, and various forms of slavery. For someone who wants to criticize slavery everywhere else, you should really take a look in the philosophy mirror and examine your own ideologies because the hypocrisy is out of control. In regards to the last question “who should have…etc.” you cannot make a moral judgement as their all morality is subjective remember? In many respects, according to you, there is no right or wrong. So why be angry with the unions unless you believe they are inhibiting you from achieving something you value or want? And if that is the case then you are immoral (using the same definition or morality from the earlier posts) as you are not reaching your intended value or want through your means. In a subjective moral world, which you say it is, I am always right, Haha.
The unions ‘allowed’ overtime? If the workers’ could negotiate overtime they would do so. One feature you don’t understand about economics is this: Let us say, I negotiate higher wages in the steel industry. Now steel, necessarily, costs more money, so everyone else’s purchasing power goes DOWN. Without producing more goods and services, there can be no increase in standard of living. Furthermore, if all profit goes to wages, there will be less for research and development and capital spending, all of which create jobs and increase GDP.
Unions prohibited racism/sexism/religion/etc from controlling the workplace? Now, it’s almost impossible to fire someone, you have to exercise EXTREME caution when hiring because of this, and companies are subject to frivolous employment lawsuits. THAT does not spell economic efficiency. I’d rather the government stay out of it; if company A wants to discriminate against me because of my age I’ll go work at company B and they can reap the rewards for not age-discriminating.
All imports should be taxed? I’d expect that to spell a LOWER overall economic output and prosperity, since countries could not produce the most of that which they produce best.
‘Slavery’ is not voluntarily working somewhere. You can use loose terms like that & say a child is slave to their parents…
Unions have been detrimental to economic prosperity. The Super High Ultra Performance Sector, GOVERNMENT, has ~36% union membership. The private sector has about 6% membership. Try firing a TEACHER. You can’t. Unless they are drunk or molest children. Have you ever heard of the grievance process? Do you think Unions contributed to the decline of the US auto or steel industry?
Scrotimere wrote:
Just because you ignore god and satiate your ego doesn’t damn you eternally to hell (sorry Catholics, not scared of hell anymore) because this mundane universe is hell.God does not force us to be with him. Hell is a place for people who want nothing to do with God, so in many respects we send ourselves there. God would not be just and fair without hell, as he would be forcing us with him otherwise and in this respect a tyrant.
But it is fair to punish the CHILDREN of one generation for the sins of the father and mother (Adam & Eve thrown out of the garden). It’s unfair to punish their descendants for sins they did not commit, right?
It doesn’t matter how many people a Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot kill; as long as they repent, it’s Heaven for them. Is that justice?
If I ‘do unto others as they would do unto me’, isn’t that the dreaded subjective morality?
Scrotimere: You can’t prove conservation of mass or energy across all cases. Noether’s theorem can ‘prove’ it for symmetrical systems but that is merely a mathematical proof.
You can’t prove conservation of mass or energy across all cases. Noether’s theorem can ‘prove’ it for symmetrical systems but that is merely a mathematical proof.
Then why does it say: “Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) Meaning all systems are symmetric, and groups of systems are symmetric. Or energy is always conserved. If it was only for certain circumstances it wouldn’t be a law it would just be an equation. If mathematical proof isn’t enough to show you god exists in some way shape or form then I’m just wasting words and I’ll leave you hamsters to sit and spin.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
