Originally posted by Eminem:
<STRONG>Without God, there is no absolute good
</STRONG>
Eminem in another post:
<STRONG>In the flood, God destroyed the ENTIRE population of the world except for Noah and his family. The Flood was a conquest of Canaan on a grand scale. In issuing the order for racial annihilation, God wassn't doing anything he hadn't done before.
</STRONG>
<STRONG>
A true Christian would never approve of murder or genocide because such crimes contradict the core principles of the New Testament
</STRONG>
I am utterly confused. God is absolutly good. God wiped out all human beings except one family. But a true christian would never approve of such killing? My conclusion from the above is:
1. Absolute goodness can include the extinction of entire populations. (Not impossible, Eminem might think so whereas I strongly disagree.)
2. God is not a true christian.
Eminem, perhaps we have a sematic issue at our hands? From your posts, it seems you and I have totally different definition of what goodness is. Also, I would appreciate some clarification on your definition of a "true christian". But no stress, I know you are busy.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Since your comments are of a more general nature that my and Eminem's discussion are (at least I think so?), it's difficult for me to explain or reply to your comments out of context from the Eminem discussion, but I'll give it a try later on if you wish.
Well i was just reading what you had written and thought i would clear up some minor matters of vocabulary. Not because they are very important but more because it might help in future discussions.
CE
I am utterly confused. God is absolutly good. God wiped out all human beings except one family. But a true christian would never approve of such killing? My conclusion from the above is:
1. Absolute goodness can include the extinction of entire populations. (Not impossible, Eminem might think so whereas I strongly disagree.)
2. God is not a true christian.
in my post i agree with this.
Here is a point that might be of interest.
I leave it to the oxford companion to philosophy to state it accurately and succinctly.
'Any attempt to identify moral principles with divine commands must run up against a dilemma first formulated in Plato's Euthyphro. Is the good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the former, then morality is the product of arbitrary will, and obedience to morality is mere obedience to authority. If the latter, then morality is independent of God's will, and knowledge of the divine will is at best redundant.'
(OCP)
An exelent tool to use is the huge reference database at www.xrefer.com were i copied this from.
See ya all later
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Fable writes:
In addition, their "democratic ideals" derived from the French Revolution--a very anti-Christian one in some respects--and ultimately from the Greek demos, which preceded Christianity's existence by some time.
This is all besides the point… you ignore the American Revolution's origins within the very anti-Christian French Revolution, as I mentioned above.
Eminem:
This is a historical misconception. First of all, the American Revolution (1774), the drafting of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the adoption and ratification of the Constitution (1787) all preceded the revolution in France (1789). There was no absolutely no way the Founding Fathers could have "derived" their democratic ideals from an event that had not even happened yet. As a matter of fact, Jefferson travelled to Paris to help Lafayette and his associates draft their own Declaration of Rights! "As you will see," he wrote in a letter to Madison, "the French Declaration contains the esssential principles of OURS accommodated as much as could be to the actual state of things HERE." (emphasis mine). Secondly, the announced aim of the French Revolutionaries was to duplicate the American Revolution - a relatively mild and bloodless revolution whose end product was a constitutional republican democracy. They failed (miserably) because the Revolution was explicitly anti-religious, and rooted in a secular humanist foundation, while the American experiment in liberty was rooted in the fact that, in Tocqueville's words, "in the United States the sovereign authority is religious." This is borne out in each nations' Declaration; Jefferson affirmed that God was the source of man's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The French Declaration, on the other hand, did not even state that rights are inherent, inalienable, or derived from a transcendent authority, but are rather endowed by an "enlightened" government.
Fable writes:
And what about Madison's quote--that, from the man whom you claimed wrote and inspired the US Constitution? You didn't mention Jefferson as a great creator or influence upon the Constitution; but Madison. Let's stick with him, just for a moment. (We'll return to Jefferson.)
Eminem:
I should have been clearer on this. I meant to say that among the state delegates Madison figured most prominently in the writing of the Constitution, and that the Founding Fathers, in framing the Constitution, drew heavily from Locke's "Two Treatises of Government." I didn't mention Jefferson because he was serving abroad in France the whole time the Convention was in progress. It's difficult to be influential when you're absent.
Fable writes:
Here's another Madison quote for you:
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."
"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against...Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance."
"Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society."
If, as you write, Madison had a tremendous influence upon the Constitution, then it would appear clear that he zealously believed in a separation of church and state. If he had little or no impact, then your earlier statement was wrong.
Eminem:
I agree that Madison zealously believed in the separation of church and state, but
certainly not in the way you and the American Civil Liberties Union interpret it - that is, as a constitutional sanction to drive Christianity into a cultural broomcloset.
I am in agreement with what Justice Joseph Story (who Madison appointed) had to say about the religious clause:
"… the general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as it was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not indignation."
The framers, Madison included, clearly believed that religious faith (namely, Christianty) influences, and should influence, the political order.
Fable writes:
Using Jefferson's definition of Christianity is not going to help establish your case, since his definition would almost certainly draw a beaming smile from a congregation of Unitarians. Calling Jefferson to your side, Eminem, you grasp a rationalist of the most determined sort.
Eminem:
Yes, but a determined rationalist who nonetheless professed to the end of his life
that, "With respect to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself, I am a real Christian sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others." I don't see how you can conclude Jefferson was "anti-Christian" in light of his confessions of faith. Nor do I think it wise to use a particular denomination's soteriological doctrine, be it Unitarian, Congregationalist, Lutheran, Baptist, or what have you to judge whether or not an individual is a true blue Christian, since each group has different standards of discipleship, and might even deem other those denominations heretical. IMPO, Jefferson was convinced he was Christian, following Christ in the way he thinks he was meant to be followed. He couldn't care less if others believed otherwise.
I should have been clearer on this. I meant to say that among the state delegates Madison figured most prominently in the writing of the Constitution, and that the Founding Fathers, in framing the Constitution, drew heavily from Locke's "Two Treatises of Government."
But that's not what you wrote, above, about Madison and Locke. It isn't a matter of clarity, but of contradiction. The original remark you made, which I have been attempting to discuss, was:
Take, for example, the United States Constitution, written and inspired by Christian Theists all (James Madison and John Locke respectively).
This latter is incorrect. I have pointed out through their views that the prominent founding fathers involved in the framing of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution were not influenced by Locke's religious views, and that Madison, though a devout Christian, was just as devout in keeping church and state as far apart as possible.
I have yet to hear any defense of this comment that was sound. You have pointed to the formality of oaths made at the Constitutional Congress; to Thomas Jefferson's remarks in favor of Jesus' ethical system; to the devoutness of the Colonies; to a bill proposing the publication of a bible, which never occured--all in defense of a supposed influence of Christianity on the founding of the US nation. All of these points have been dealt with. The concept is a myth, a dream. A Christianized US government, as conceived by the nation's major thinkers and creators of its primary legal documents, did not exist. Piecemealing my posts doesn't disguise this fact. If you have evidence otherwise, post it.
I agree that Madison zealously believed in the separation of church and state, but
certainly not in the way you and the American Civil Liberties Union interpret it - that is, as a constitutional sanction to drive Christianity into a cultural broomcloset.
Did you come up with this cheap debating tactic of criticism by association yourself, or was it suggested to you? I would never descend to bracketing you with a group, so as to slam you for views you may or may not possess. Please, either give this kind of thing up, or forfeit discussion altogether. These tricks literally stink in the nostrils.
I am in agreement with what Justice Joseph Story (who Madison appointed) had to say about the religious clause:
"… the general if not universal sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as it was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not indignation."
1845. Not 1776 or 1789: not during the founding of the US government by Madison and others like him; indeed, Madison was long dead by the time these remarks were uttered. The country had changed dramatically--it had become extremely insular, conservative, and suspicious of the very foreigners who had formerly been welcomed with open arms. Not five years later, Millard Filmore of the "Know Nothing" Party, espousing a platform that was openly hostile to Catholics and Jews, would secure a term as President. Indeed, a case could be made out (and has) that the "Christianization" of the US occurred during the mid-19th century.
This is the background of Story's remarks. It is not relevant to Madison, because it contradicts Madison's own statements, because it happens 75 years too late, and because Story's views on the original US govermment have been repeatedly discredited as inaccurate over the years.
If you want to break out a separate discussion on Jefferson, or the French Revolution, or the Greek demos, I'll be happy to oblige. But as I apparently didn't make clear above, I would like to stay within the framework of your initial conception: that the most influential founding fathers of the US government were men who Christianized it; and again, your comment:
Take, for example, the United States Constitution, written and inspired by Christian Theists all (James Madison and John Locke respectively).
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: fable ]
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>The famous French historian Alexis de Toqueville, after visiting nineteenth century America, declared the Christian ideal to be the inspiration behind the nation's greatness. He repeatedly stated that it was America's religious bond that held her together, and wrote: "There is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." 200 years have passed, AND HIS STATEMENT STILL HOLDS TRUE.</STRONG>
No it doesn't.
How's that for debating skills? I pop my finger against my inner cheek to any who would say this reply is the most unintelligent piece of garbage they have read in a good while and that it has no place in such an intellectually deep discussion. I can't even pop my finger against my cheek in real life, but it's my post and i'll do as i wish.
Seriously, though. The US has fallen far from what it once was, known as a "Christian" nation. I think most would now agree that the US is a "post-christianity" nation. I'm not for sure if i made that term up. It's late and i'm tired. And besides, i'm not out to prove my intelligence or unintelligence...which is no doubt why the latter will come through much more readily. There are several countries in Indonesia where Christians are DYING for their faith. I have nothing on them, and it would shame me to claim otherwise. The United States is morally bankrupt. Not because of a lack of Christianity or an abundance of Atheism or such...but because our society has traded morals and decency for pushing one's way to the top. The individual reigns, and i will have no part of it. And now i'm going to go and read about the church before it was corrupted by the stench of this world.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: average joe ]
Totino's party pizzas rock! All a college kid needs to get by....
Originally posted by average joe:
<STRONG>No it doesn't.
</STRONG>
Yes, it does.
For the past forty years, the United States churches have sent out more missionaries for the task of evangelization than any other "Christian" country in the world (with the exception, IIRC, of South Korea in 1998).
And despite the country's tightening embrace of secularism, 80% of Americans still believe that Jesus Christ is God, or is the Son of God, and a significant majority believe that man is a product of creation, and not of evolution.
BTW, joe, I think dying for your faith is a heck of alot easier than living it.
now that you have more time on your hands i look forward to hearing your reply to my post.
I am specifikly refering to the post were i refute your contention that
atheism lends itself to a morally bankrupt worldview.
I would also be interested to hear your reply to my arguements that the concept of morality is incompatible with morality having its foundation in god, should he exist.
I am refering here to (excuse me for qouting myself):
1
T. But why is a morality based on or with a foundation in god not even cogent? The reason is that if we want to know if a person did something morally good we must look at his/her INTENTION. If I save a child JUST to impress a girl standing by the lake watching then I can’t be said to be morally good in that situation – I should save the child because it is the right thing to do.
Similarly if I save the child because god told me to then I am saving the child for the wrong reason and thus not being moral.
2
'Any attempt to identify moral principles with divine commands must run up against a dilemma first formulated in Plato's Euthyphro. Is the good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the former, then morality is the product of arbitrary will, and obedience to morality is mere obedience to authority. If the latter, then morality is independent of God's will, and knowledge of the divine will is at best redundant.'
(OCP)
I hope that you will agree with me that atheism is completly compatible with morality (or if not answer my arguements) and that you agree with me that basing morality in god is contrary to the nature of morality. This was after all something Kant realised and he was a very devout christian.
@ CE thanks for your mail
as you can see from this post and from my other posts we agree on most things. my post directed at you was merely to sort a basic muddle in your vocabulary and was not directed against the content of your thoughts.
hope to hear from you all
Tom
--------------------------
"I have opinions of my own - Strong opinions - but i dont always agree with them"
George W Bush.
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Congratulations on your graduation, @Eminem. What are your plans for the immediate future?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
