Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not a physicist so I cannot understand the scientific explanation of the theories of relativity.

This is a wise and honest admission. Few people can understand it, so there's no shame in that. But we're not wise to draw philosophical conclusions about a theory we don't really understand, are we?

I can understand descriptions intended for lay people.

But Einstein himself does not attempt to deduce Relativism from the Theory of Relativity. That's something that's only been done by those who really didn't understand what Einstein said, and it makes an unwarranted jump from a theory of physics to a theory of morality, across the fact-value divide.

My suggestion is that you should ignore such "descriptions for lay people," unless they do a much better job of justifying the connection they require you to make. There is no obvious or necessary rational connection between relativity and Relativism, despite the the root term "relative."

The connection between the scientific relativity, the cultural relativity, and the moral relativity is the principle beliefs depend on perspective.

No. On logic. What does "perspective" matter, if the perspective is wrong?

The best we have for moral perspectives do not depend upon a supernatural monogod.

"The best we have"? Judged by whom? Certainly not universally, because people believe in very different ethical metaframeworks.

Jesus of Nazareth for instance was a faithful and committed Jew all his life

Yes and no.

Jewish, He certainly is; but His teachings transform mere ritual Judaism into much more than a ritual. That's why the leading conventional Jewish teachers of His day, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Him. He indicted them for mere ritualism, and undermined their claimed ethical authority. For the same reason, Judaism today is largely resistant to recognizing Jesus Christ as Messiah.

and his teaching is respected by Buddhists, Humanists, Muslims, Confucians,...

Not really. They all say they "respect" Him, then completely ignore what He actually said and did. That's not much "respect."

...the two key ethics 1. Love God 2. Love your fellow man.

Those would be odd ethics if #1 referred to nothing at all, as you suggest it does. Then the ethics would read, "Love what does not exist, and for the sake of loving that which does not exist, love also what He did not create."

Make sense of that, if you can.

The old cosmos with God as supreme giver of moral law vanished and in its place we have God represented by what means the most to any individual. This would be a recipe for wars and culture clashes...

Two problems with this idea: firstly, that nobody who was actually obeying the words of Jesus Christ ever did what you imply...meaning only by disobeying, not obeying did anyone ever create such conflicts, and secondly, that during the last century, we managed to have bigger wars with more deaths than in all previous history combined -- but without needing any religion to do it. So if speaking of God is the real cause of wars and culture clashes, and not believing in one God fixes the problem, how did we do that?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

No. On logic. What does "perspective" matter, if the perspective is wrong?

But there is no external standard of right and wrong or of what a religion should be. To think there is such an external standard can go to ridiculous lengths like Parson Thwackum in Tom Jones

When I mention religion I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England. Henry Fielding.

The people whose cultural perspective is being questioned is neither right nor wrong as a people, however the perspective may be very wrong when it's transposed from quite a different time and place to modernity.

...the two key ethics 1. Love God 2. Love your fellow man.

Those would be odd ethics if #1 referred to nothing at all, as you suggest it does. Then the ethics would read, "Love what does not exist, and for the sake of loving that which does not exist, love also what He did not create."

Make sense of that, if you can.

The two ethics refer to what human creativity has caused to exist. There was a time when men externalised ideas as if they had originated outside the man,(e.g. "I was struck with an idea.") but now we know ideas originate with men and not with some supernatural agency.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

No. On logic. What does "perspective" matter, if the perspective is wrong?

But there is no external standard of right and wrong or of what a religion should be.

Sure there is.

There are lots of people, for example, who believe religion should be "the truth," or "reality," if you prefer. In fact, that's what pretty much all of them believe, even the so-called Relativists.

After all, don't you think that a Relativist believes it's "better" for people to believe in Relativism? Don't you think a Relativist would say that Relativism is "more realistic" than, say, moral or religious objectivism? And if he didn't think that, why would he be a Relativist himself? He would then not believe in his own belief system!

Everybody's actually a moral objectivist: it's just that Relativists are generally clueless about how inherently self-contradictory their views are.

The people whose cultural perspective is being questioned is neither right nor wrong as a people, however the perspective may be very wrong when it's transposed from quite a different time and place to modernity.

Well, you just contradicted Relativism, and you imposed an external standard. You said that "the perspective may be wrong" given "a different time and place to modernity." The place and time is external. And if a view misses that standard that is correct for its place and time, you say it's "wrong." Not just that, but "very wrong."

You're being a moral objectivist there. Not only that, but you're suggesting you know when a thing is "right" or "wrong" for its "time and place." And you seem to think you know what "modernity" allegedly requires, too.

...the two key ethics 1. Love God 2. Love your fellow man.

Those would be odd ethics if #1 referred to nothing at all, as you suggest it does. Then the ethics would read, "Love what does not exist, and for the sake of loving that which does not exist, love also what He did not create."

Make sense of that, if you can.

The two ethics refer to what human creativity has caused to exist.

So you mean it should read, "Love what human creativity has caused to exist," (presumably everything from Picassos and penicillin to atom bombs and gas chambers), and then "Love your neighbour because of what human creativity has caused to exist"?

And that's "making sense" of it?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

No. On logic. What does "perspective" matter, if the perspective is wrong?

But there is no external standard of right and wrong or of what a religion should be.

Sure there is.

There are lots of people, for example, who believe religion should be "the truth," or "reality," if you prefer. In fact, that's what pretty much all of them believe, even the so-called Relativists.

After all, don't you think that a Relativist believes it's "better" for people to believe in Relativism? Don't you think a Relativist would say that Relativism is "more realistic" than, say, moral or religious objectivism? And if he didn't think that, why would he be a Relativist himself? He would then not believe in his own belief system!

Everybody's actually a moral objectivist: it's just that Relativists are generally clueless about how inherently self-contradictory their views are.

The people whose cultural perspective is being questioned is neither right nor wrong as a people, however the perspective may be very wrong when it's transposed from quite a different time and place to modernity.

Well, you just contradicted Relativism, and you imposed an external standard. You said that "the perspective may be wrong" given "a different time and place to modernity." The place and time is external. And if a view misses that standard that is correct for its place and time, you say it's "wrong." Not just that, but "very wrong."

You're being a moral objectivist there. Not only that, but you're suggesting you know when a thing is "right" or "wrong" for its "time and place." And you seem to think you know what "modernity" allegedly requires, too.

Those would be odd ethics if #1 referred to nothing at all, as you suggest it does. Then the ethics would read, "Love what does not exist, and for the sake of loving that which does not exist, love also what He did not create."

Make sense of that, if you can.

The two ethics refer to what human creativity has caused to exist.

So you mean it should read, "Love what human creativity has caused to exist," (presumably everything from Picassos and penicillin to atom bombs and gas chambers), and then "Love your neighbour because of what human creativity has caused to exist"?


And that's "making sense" of it?

What "lots of people " believe is not an external standard, but is intersubjective.
Ethnic standards are not the same as people who hold these ethnic standards. The people who hold to their cultural standards are right to hold to them, but the cultural standards themselves may be condemned. I relate to people differently from how I may relate to their cultures of belief.

I don't condemn people who burned witches ; I do condemn the beliefs from my own perspective.

I don't claim to be sure about what modernity requires. I have thought a lot about the matter but my claims might be dismissed. I do claim that modern people are finding it hard to keep up with the pace of social change, and often resort to unhealthy beliefs for want of better beliefs.In particular I think attachment to religion revealed by a supernatural agent is unhealthy.One, it's no longer credible and two it is reactive to rapid social change when it should be creative.

[Immanuel Can]

What "lots of people " believe is not an external standard, but is intersubjective.

The external standard you invoked was not "what lots of people believe": it was "time and place." Your words, not mine. You claim that these features make a moral position right or wrong. I was just saying that's not credible.

The people who hold to their cultural standards are right to hold to them,

How do you know? Your statement means, "Nazis who hold to Nazi cultural standards are right to hold them." Is that what you really meant to imply?

but the cultural standards themselves may be condemned.

From what basis? Who are you to condemn other people following their "cultural standards," unless somehow you have recourse to be able to evaluate their standards as objectively wrong -- for which you would need your own cultural standard to be more right than theirs.

Can you show that your own cultural standard is fit to judge others? If you suppose you can, then let's see how that argument would go. Run it for me: how do you rationally establish which cultural standards are to be condemned?

I don't condemn people who burned witches ; I do condemn the beliefs from my own perspective.

That will be no consolation at all to the dead witches. That you secretly didn't like it when they burned will not help them one bit, and obviously, won't make you anything but a colluder by way of passivity.

I don't claim to be sure about what modernity requires.

Well, modernity doesn't actually "require" anything. Your "time and place" criterion actually makes no sense at all, whether we're talking about modernity, premodernity or postmodernity. No mere "ethos" actually makes anything right or wrong; things are right or wrong regardless of the ethos, or nothing is right or wrong at all.

Of course, the latter spells disaster for all.

I do claim that modern people are finding it hard to keep up with the pace of social change, and often resort to unhealthy beliefs for want of better beliefs.

I absolutely agree with you.

But attachment to religions, both good and bad ones, is not a modern phenomenon, but is as old as the human race. I think what we're seeing that's new is the diversification of superstition, or of gratuitous credulity, so that people who, perhaps in the modern period may have claimed to believe in nothing at all now seem intrigued by every foolish cult, fad, philosophy, idea, notion or whim, and don't now seem to have a basis for assessing which ones are actually right and which are actually wrong.

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

[Lacewing]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

[attofishpi]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Some can't see the forest for the trees, most can't see Christ for the Churches.

[Lacewing]

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Some can't see the forest for the trees, most can't see Christ for the Churches.

That may be true of some people. It may also be true that people don't need to believe in a god to see beyond the limitations of many of those belief systems as they have been created and manipulated by man.

[attofishpi]

That makes no sense. Non belief in one thing does not result in belief in "anything".

Some can't see the forest for the trees, most can't see Christ for the Churches.

That may be true of some people. It may also be true that people don't need to believe in a god to see beyond the limitations of many of those belief systems as they have been created and manipulated by man.

Not sure how I am limited by my knowledge of God's existence, perhaps you could enlighten me?

[Lacewing]

Some can't see the forest for the trees, most can't see Christ for the Churches.

That may be true of some people. It may also be true that people don't need to believe in a god to see beyond the limitations of many of those belief systems as they have been created and manipulated by man.

Not sure how I am limited by my knowledge of God's existence, perhaps you could enlighten me?

I said to see beyond the limitations of the belief systems. You don't believe in many of the belief systems either, right? So why are you trying to stir up nonsense with me?

[attofishpi]

That may be true of some people. It may also be true that people don't need to believe in a god to see beyond the limitations of many of those belief systems as they have been created and manipulated by man.

Not sure how I am limited by my knowledge of God's existence, perhaps you could enlighten me?

I said to see beyond the limitations of the belief systems. You don't believe in many of the belief systems either, right? So why are you trying to stir up nonsense with me?

That's right - my point is, that believing in God and Christ does NOT require that one believes in all the folly of the buy bull - like the stuff spouted from evangelists. PASTOR? ROT_SAP. God/Christ ain't that big on preachers.

Take going to Mass (<---interesting word btw) for example to eat the body of Christ. Christ stated, do this in memory of me.
Ok, so he did want a ceremony to keep the concept of his sacrifice within the minds of wo/men. He DIDN'T say DO IT EVERY WEEK or daily!! Some of these arse kissing suck suck Christians have eaten way more than the body of Christ - enough where he might have to come back and do it again, ya give anuva body to feast upon!

[Belinda]

What "lots of people " believe is not an external standard, but is intersubjective.

The external standard you invoked was not "what lots of people believe": it was "time and place." Your words, not mine. You claim that these features make a moral position right or wrong. I was just saying that's not credible.

The people who hold to their cultural standards are right to hold to them,

How do you know? Your statement means, "Nazis who hold to Nazi cultural standards are right to hold them." Is that what you really meant to imply?

but the cultural standards themselves may be condemned.

From what basis? Who are you to condemn other people following their "cultural standards," unless somehow you have recourse to be able to evaluate their standards as objectively wrong -- for which you would need your own cultural standard to be more right than theirs.

Can you show that your own cultural standard is fit to judge others? If you suppose you can, then let's see how that argument would go. Run it for me: how do you rationally establish which cultural standards are to be condemned?

I don't condemn people who burned witches ; I do condemn the beliefs from my own perspective.

That will be no consolation at all to the dead witches. That you secretly didn't like it when they burned will not help them one bit, and obviously, won't make you anything but a colluder by way of passivity.

I don't claim to be sure about what modernity requires.

Well, modernity doesn't actually "require" anything. Your "time and place" criterion actually makes no sense at all, whether we're talking about modernity, premodernity or postmodernity. No mere "ethos" actually makes anything right or wrong; things are right or wrong regardless of the ethos, or nothing is right or wrong at all.

Of course, the latter spells disaster for all.

I do claim that modern people are finding it hard to keep up with the pace of social change, and often resort to unhealthy beliefs for want of better beliefs.

I absolutely agree with you.

But attachment to religions, both good and bad ones, is not a modern phenomenon, but is as old as the human race. I think what we're seeing that's new is the diversification of superstition, or of gratuitous credulity, so that people who, perhaps in the modern period may have claimed to believe in nothing at all now seem intrigued by every foolish cult, fad, philosophy, idea, notion or whim, and don't now seem to have a basis for assessing which ones are actually right and which are actually wrong.

The old saying is right: When people stop believing in God, they don't believe nothing; instead, they believe anything.

I am unhappy about the opinion I expressed about witch burners, and Nazis, or the way I expressed my opinion. These were not ethnicities but ignorance of the larger culture. I will think about it some more.

However, I do disagree with your

Well, modernity doesn't actually "require" anything. Your "time and place" criterion actually makes no sense at all, whether we're talking about modernity, premodernity or postmodernity. No mere "ethos" actually makes anything right or wrong; things are right or wrong regardless of the ethos, or nothing is right or wrong at all.

What is held to be right or wrong are manmade criteria . The function of right and wrong is and always was for social solidarity for the purpose of common safety and common productivity. that is to say in olden times right and wrong were tribal codes, if they were codified at all. This is why in the OT it was so important that Baal and other tribal gods were banished so that the newly emerging more universal God would take power. Jahweh himself was tribal but had the makings of universal deity. By "universal deity" I mean transethnic deity. This is why the first four of the Ten Commandments are not to do with right social behaviour but are to do with right attitudes to God.

The early Tribe who worshipped Baal and suchlike powers were not evil but were people who had not yet learned a later ,more universalistic, approach to deity. So it follows time and place and cosmology do matter when we are talking about blaming a people and their ethnicity.

As I said, I need to think more about witch burners, and Nazis, not to mention ISIS. These are departures sometimes criminal strayings from the larger culture. The larger trend of human cultures and moralities has been and is I sincerely hope towards universality and universalism, and away from tribalism.

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the ... ments.html

[Systematic]

Did we evolve from apes? Most likely yes. But that's no excuse to be cruel in default.

We did not evolve from apes we are an ape, one of the Great Apes, we are Primates.

Primates with nukes.

[Systematic]

Jesus of Nazareth for instance was a faithful and committed Jew all his life

Yes and no.

Jewish, He certainly is; but His teachings transform mere ritual Judaism into much more than a ritual. That's why the leading conventional Jewish teachers of His day, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Him. He indicted them for mere ritualism, and undermined their claimed ethical authority. For the same reason, Judaism today is largely resistant to recognizing Jesus Christ as Messiah.

King of the Jews, dies. All of his followers, don't know whom to follow anymore. Anarchy spreads across the Roman Empire.

But Jesus was no anarchist. He wanted the power for himself.

Best guess that I got.

[Belinda]

Jesus of Nazareth for instance was a faithful and committed Jew all his life

Yes and no.

Jewish, He certainly is; but His teachings transform mere ritual Judaism into much more than a ritual. That's why the leading conventional Jewish teachers of His day, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Him. He indicted them for mere ritualism, and undermined their claimed ethical authority. For the same reason, Judaism today is largely resistant to recognizing Jesus Christ as Messiah.

I must have omitted to comment on that important point made by Immanuel Can. I agree Jesus was no simplistic legalist, and when he aimed to be a faithful Jew he aimed to support the transethnic ability of the Jewish God. He succeeded in this, and so did Paul.Forgive the anachronistic words.

I know almost nothing about contemporary Judaism.