Heaven against Humanity

27 08 2007

Posted by: Db0 in Religion, tags: Christianity, humanism, morality, Theism

You always hear and see Christians exclaim how much more fortunate they are that they belong in the only religion that can grant them true happiness after death. Some go even further and decide that people who do not believe in christianity are missing out and it is their duty to save them before it is too late. Mix that with the threat of eternal damnation on the other side and you’ve got an powerful chain of fear to bind people when brainwashing them from a young age.

But I digress, this is not the point of the article I am attempting to write currently. Rather, I would prefer to focus on the first part of the previous sentence, that is, how Christians are virtuous only because they want to get into Heaven and what effect it has on all of us.

The points that I wish to raise are two:

Fist of all - and this is a classic atheistic counter-argument mind you - how can Christians actually feel good about this? How can they accept that whatever good deed they perform, is not because they are actually good persons or want to make the world a better place, but because they’re selfishly going for the big prize or plainly out of fear? Honestly, who is a better, more mature person? One who expects candy for doing good (or just is whipped into doing so) or the one who does not expect anything, but rather gets gratification from the deed itself?

In any case, this idea has been explained much more fluently elsewhere so I will not elaborate on it further. It may however give you a glimpse, on why this moral immaturity affecting Christians who seek rewards, is part of the problem I will attempt to present.

How the idea of Heaven creates problem for Humanity

The main issue I am having with the idea of people being moral or “good” just because it will get them into Heaven, is that it makes people min-max. I always wondered how the people that believe in such a harsh punishment for acting bad, can keep on doing it nevertheless, and there are only two plausible explanations to this behaviour that I can think of:

Case nr 1: They do not actually believe this bullshit. They’ve just realized, and rightly so, that acting like a Christian will give you public support, no matter what you do when no one’s looking. They can probably be classified as deists or even atheists, which ironically, makes them morally exactly what Christians believe atheists are.
It is a fitting societal situation, that a truly decadent and immoral atheist/deist would never come out and announce his (lack of) belief, quite unlike the rest of us, because of the public condemnation. <sarcasm>You know, because labeling yourself as a Christian, immediately makes you a moral person.</sarcasm>
These are the people that, like many others before them, have realized the illogical power religion has on people and they exploit it like no other.
Case nr 2: They do believe this bullshit but they also believe that there is some kind of cosmic scale going on in which their good deeds will be balanced against their bad. It will not matter if they are horrible bastards for most of their life as long as they do not commit a mortal sin (as Catholics) or truly repent and accept Jeeeeeeezus close to the end (for Protestants) they are safe. All they have to do other than that, is make sure that their good deeds at least outweight their evil ones, and they’re home free.

Now, I will not go into the first case since there is not much you can actually do to stop an immoral person taking advantage of the sheep, other than uncover him, but the second case is the one that I believe needs some further analysis.

The idea that you should do more good deeds than your…naughty ones is not a particularly bad one (except the similarity with Santa Claus which most people, for some reason manage to disbelieve, unlike their invisible friend in the sky) but it just does not sit very well with me. You see, I try not to do anything evil, dishonest or harming, not out of any supernatural fear, but because I know it is never in my best interest. It’s a logic that is out of the scope of this particular article so please take my word for it. The difference between that and a theist is that I try not to do any such act, while a Christian may act on it if it is in his immediate interest, with purpose to make up for it later.

Before you bring up an example of the (rare) extreme case of Christian that acts in a similar way, ie, not doing any evil deeds, I want to state that the reason they do so is because they will expect even greater reward than the rest of us, or that their idea of balance is seriously skewed. That means that for them, a naughty thought is equal to adultery for a “vanilla Christian”. It’s still a matter of scale though, and they still try to get it just right.

Now, how is all this against Humanity in general? Well of course, because the idea of what constitutes a good or bad deed for Christians is completely disconnected from the real world. Let me give you some examples. For a Christian…

Exploiting the environment may not be a bad deed. After all, the bible itself states that the world was created only for Man’s use. Not to mention the fact that for many fundies Armageddon/Rapure/Whatever is always just around the corner; so it’s not going to make much of a difference if they pollute an extra river is it?
Giving your money to the Church is a good deed. What this means that someone might have a children’s sweat shop in Thailand but because the fair amount of that money goes to the church, it makes up for it. I mean, seriously, how many people do you know whose only “good deed” is visiting the church and giving money, which they naively assume will go to charities, instead of political ~~bullying~~ funding?
Instigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed. Even better if those weapons go to the heathen who kill each other eh? After all, he does not even violate the 6th commandment (5th for you Catholics/Lutherans) is he?
Spreading the gospel / Proselytizing is a good deed. To an extreme, killing the infidel is also a good deed (Ok, not so much lately for the Christians, but you can still see the second monotheistic religion following that mentality). So, of course you may have kept people sick and dying in inhumane conditions but because you converted them to Christianity, it makes up for it doesn’t it? To an extend this is also to blame for all these fucking stupid laws countries pass that fight Science and/or human rights. You know, because if we let people learn and or have a choice on their own self, we are allowing evil to happen which will count against us in the big scoreboard in the sky…

Etc, I believe you get the idea.

The fact is, what people do that is recognized by all as a good, you know, humane stuff, is quite happily taken up by secularist who actually want to see the world become a better place. We know that making it a better place will serve us, our children and the future generations perfectly. There is no Armageddon coming…ok, let me phrase that better…there is no supernatural Armageddon coming for there is always a chance that a Theistic nutter will attempt to bring it about, which quite frankly is what many of us fear.)

For the Chrisitan though, humanism is either not enough or too much. Who cares if you make the world a better place for all humans when you can still make economic slaves of third world countries and still buy your seat into Heaven? Who cares about “saving the life” of a starving Hindu child if you’re not going to turn it into a Christian? (Yes, believe it or not, that is an actual criticism Christian fundies have against Mother Teresa).

It is clear to me now that the hunt for Heavenly rewards, which for a Christian is the undeniable proof of his superior morality, is not only harming to the persons ethical maturity, but to the World in general.

PS: I mainly target Christians in this article but I’m certain you can plainly see how this can apply not only to all three monotheistic religions but also to all the ones that promise after-life rewards for specific values. The more disconnected those values are from Humanism, the worse for all of us…

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 27th, 2007 at 11:42 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comments “Heaven against Humanity”

Deep Thought says:
September 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pm - Edit

You have a rather shallow understanding of the Christian concepts of Heaven and good deeds; indeed, you sound like you only know about as much as a 4th grader who decides he is too smart for that dorta’ thing.

While fear of punishment is often a starting point for the development of a moral sense (ask your parents) a mature moral sense is one of doing it for its own sake. This is just as true for Christianity as it is for Aristotle. To claim that Christians see Heaven as the Eternal Carrot, period, is like claiming that the only reason you don’t cheat on your spouse is fear of being caught, or that you would steal candy if not for those pesky police.

Db0 says:
September 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am - Edit

Wait, so let me get this straight; you are saying that the morality of christianity is not really necessary? I mean, people have the same general morals wether they are christians, hindus, atheists or wherever else (AKS, The Golden Rule). If we are supposed to mature our moral sense by ourselves, then where does christianity fit in morality?
So, please explain to me how you have expanded your own morality to the point that you oppose birth control.

Furthermore, you might take the fear of punishment from God as a starting point, but I assure you, many Christians don’t. This is especially true with Protestants/Lutherans (which I’m certain you’ll argue, are not True Christians) where they happily “Accept Jeezus” and don’t really care about morality as long as the scales balance, at least accordingly to their pastor.

Finally, you have not touched upon the part that christians frequently have a distorted sense of morality (as exemplified by you no less). If they are supposed to “mature” then I am guessing they mature in a cancerous way…

Deep Thought says:
September 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm - Edit

Catholicism does not deny that it is possible for a non-Christian to have a mature moral sense, nor does Judaism re: non-Jews. After all, Aristotle is held as an example of clear moral thinking by Catholics and Judaism has long written of the ‘righteous gentile’. I encounter many non-Christians/non-Jews with a strong, mature moral sense that I agree is rational.

As for some people maintaining an immature moral sense, that is hardly unique to the religious! Or do you deny that some atheists are atheists because they are mad at Mom and Dad and that they act in moral manners because they fear the police? To complain that the belief in Heaven and Hell compels some to act in a moral manner despite their underlying desires is akin to complaining that some people only obey the law because of police and prisons. yeah, that’s true - but what’s the point? Hypocrisy is a human condition and Judeo-Christianity does not deny human nature, it simply hopes to channel it to constructive ends (in the context of society).

I have no idea how you have concluded that I have a distorted sense of morality - you hardly have enough examples of my moral thinking - unless you are referencing my own work on my blog. In which case, please pony up some examples.

I have always enjoyed the ‘no true Scotsman’ concept, but it hardly applies. As the very article you link mentions, if the disagreement is one of concept of definition (i.e., between sects of a religion) then it is not fallacious. Further, Catholicism - for one - does, indeed, have a clear definition from an authoritative source. In other words, I must conclude that your link to the ‘no true Scotsman’ article indicates that you must A) not really understand the ‘no true Scotsman’ argument, B) not understand the nature of inter-denominational debate amongst Judeo-Christians or C) both.

Christianity ‘fits into’ morality by advocating an objectivist (small ‘o’), realist, empiricist concept of morals with a core reliance upon reason as the tool for appling morality. At least, that is the case with Orthodox Judaism, Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, and a majority of Protestant denominations.

And was your request that I explain my moral conclusions regarding the use of artificial birth control serious?

Arnoc says:
September 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm - Edit

As far as I have seen this “we are happy no matter who asks but still wait for after death” brainwashing is quite present a thing. At least at some families I happen to know. It’s very fascinating what psychologists find out by day in such families.. if pastors would have, they would .. send them all propably burn.. :] Anyway - I think that the main problem is that moral principles that are not constantly (I mean more than 4 times a year in today’s society) updated but dictated and befound as good by someone (being it a council or the pope or whoever) lack the adequation to nowaday life and are basically useless. Its like an OS, if you dont update it on regular basis there is a lot that you can not do what you should.

As I am sure any action taken without own responsibility but with a god ones is taken with a certain lack of maturity.

Db0 says:
September 28th, 2007 at 7:56 am - Edit

@ Deep Thought:

As for some people maintaining an immature moral sense, that is hardly unique to the religious! Or do you deny that some atheists are atheists because they are mad at Mom and Dad and that they act in moral manners because they fear the police?

You see, that is the problem with your example. The atheists that are mad at mom and dad are obviously kids, therefore their moral sense is normal to be undeveloped (not to mention that to strike back at your parents by claiming atheism is only possible because you were force fed it all your childhood and also means that you’re most probably not really an atheist). The Atheists that act in a moral sense because they fear the law, still know what is good and bad, they just don’t care. These people will still do what is bad if the law is not watching but will still know it is wrong.

To complain that the belief in Heaven and Hell compels some to act in a moral manner despite their underlying desires is akin to complaining that some people only obey the law because of police and prisons. yeah, that’s true - but what’s the point?

Oh, I’m not complaining. Not about that anyway. What I am complaining about it that Christians usually develop quite a skewed moral sense than what is appropriate (as an example see my four bullet points) because their morality is based on wrong ideals.
The point which you wish to know, is that an atheist with a developed moral sense will, most probably be an Humanist and an altruist. Because this moral sense requires fuel in the form of education and critical thinking, it is quite rare to see it on poor and desperate people (who are the ones that usually only keep lawful because of the punishment mind you. People are not “moral” because of the Law, they are law abiding and can be quite immoral on where the punishment is not enough or does not exist.). These are the same poor and desperate people that religions prey upon and then instruct them to stay ignorant if they wish to reap the “eternal rewards”.
On the other habd, a Christian with a developed moral sense, will have a distorted one which leads to all funky situations on where they oppose, say…abortion? I mean, certainly because their “developed morality” does indeed explain why a raped teenager of a poor family should not destroy a few cells in her own body even though it would mean a much better life for her and any future kids… (and yes I would be quite interested to know of your moral conclusions for artificial birth control. After all, it will exemplify how a true christian’s developed morality works will it not?)

Hypocrisy is a human condition and Judeo-Christianity does not deny human nature, it simply hopes to channel it to constructive ends (in the context of society).

How exactly do you channel hypocrisy to constructive ends? If nothing else, you just give it room to breed and spread instead of rooting it out.

I have no idea how you have concluded that I have a distorted sense of morality - you hardly have enough examples of my moral thinking - unless you are referencing my own work on my blog. In which case, please pony up some examples.

Your “About” page was enough.

I have always enjoyed the ‘no true Scotsman’ concept, but it hardly applies. As the very article you link mentions, if the disagreement is one of concept of definition (i.e., between sects of a religion) then it is not fallacious. Further, Catholicism - for one - does, indeed, have a clear definition from an authoritative source. In other words, I must conclude that your link to the ‘no true Scotsman’ article indicates that you must A) not really understand the ‘no true Scotsman’ argument, B) not understand the nature of inter-denominational debate amongst Judeo-Christians or C) both.

Oh but it does. Unless you believe that Catholics all try to get a matured sense of morality, which in my experience is quite the other way around. The argument also mentions that problem of definition only applies to generally accepted definitions that are quite impossible to get wrong and then, only in their most basic definition (As in, a “vegetarian”). Last time I checked Protestants were still considered Christians, were they not? Or do you not consider them Christians at all, in any way? From that I conclude that you must not really understand the true Scotsman argument.

Christianity ‘fits into’ morality by advocating an objectivist (small ‘o’), realist, empiricist concept of morals with a core reliance upon reason as the tool for appling morality. At least, that is the case with Orthodox Judaism, Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, and a majority of Protestant denominations.

Since when!? You might wish Christianity advocated all that, but history clearly shows that it is quite the contrary. If nothing else, christianity advocates the enemy of reason: faith, as the tool for applying morality. The vast majority just follow the teachings of their pastor/cleric/pope as moral rules and take it on “faith” that that person is true.
What you say is certainly not the case with Orthodox Judaism, Catholic/Orthodox Christianity and the majority of Protestant denominations.

Deep Thought says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 am - Edit

Db0,
I hadn’t heard back in so long I was starting to think you wouldn’t answer.

“The atheists that are mad at mom and dad are obviously kids, therefore their moral sense is normal to be undeveloped”

Well, there are plenty of adults that, at heart, choose as they do out of less-than-mature reasons. My point is that you are singling out religious people for being mature - this is a universal. Some people simply never develop mature moral senses.

“The Atheists that act in a moral sense because they fear the law, still know what is good and bad, they just don’t care. These people will still do what is bad if the law is not watching but will still know it is wrong.”

Not always true. Some people, atheist or not, simply do not know right from wrong.

“Christians usually develop quite a skewed moral sense than what is appropriate”

This is an unsupported assertion. Not even by your bullets:

“Exploiting the environment may not be a bad deed. After all, the bible itself states that the world was created only for Man’s use. Not to mention the fact that for many fundies Armageddon/Rapure/Whatever is always just around the corner; so it’s not going to make much of a difference if they pollute an extra river is it?”

First off, there are plenty of religious environmentalists and environmental groups. Second, how many Objectivists are environmentalists? There are plenty of people in the ‘there’s no afterlife and *I* can’t take it with me, so screw the environment!’, aren’t there? Of course there are.

“Giving your money to the Church is a good deed. What this means that someone might have a children’s sweat shop in Thailand but because the fair amount of that money goes to the church, it makes up for it. I mean, seriously, how many people do you know whose only “good deed” is visiting the church and giving money, which they naively assume will go to charities, instead of political bullying funding?”

Religious people give more to actual charities (fighting hunger, aiding education, free clinics and hospitals) than do non-religious. The primary people on the ground in Asia and Latin America fighting sweat shops are religious people. And while Catholic Charities is giving billions in aid to the poor, the hungry, and the sick (regardless of religious affiliation, including atheists) I have yet to see an atheist group with a network of universities and charity hospitals. There are plenty of atheists who think good deeds are for suckers (see my comment on Objectivists, above).

“Instigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed. Even better if those weapons go to the heathen who kill each other eh? After all, he does not even violate the 6th commandment (5th for you Catholics/Lutherans) is he?”

Of course, this statement just ignores 2,000+ ideas like, say, Pax Christi, Just War theory, and the Quakers/Shakers, just to name a very few anti-war and anti-violence concepts that are purely religious. This would be a nice segue into, for example, the Communist concept of revolution and the wholesale export of war and terrorism by atheists during the last century.

“Spreading the gospel / Proselytizing is a good deed”

What are you doing here, keeping atheism a secret? Nope - you are promoting it as objectively good. That is called (wait for it) proselytizing.

Your bullet ‘points’ are merely unsupported opinion and anecdote.

“How exactly do you channel hypocrisy to constructive ends? If nothing else, you just give it room to breed and spread instead of rooting it out.”

By turning it into a true devotion to mercy and justice when possible and supressing it when not. Again, show me the strings of charity hospitals, colleges, etc. founded by atheist organizations that can compare with just the St. Jude network.

“Your “About” page was enough.”

You got a problem with home schoolers? Or Southerners?

“The argument also mentions that problem of definition only applies to generally accepted definitions that are quite impossible to get wrong and then, only in their most basic definition (As in, a “vegetarian”). Last time I checked Protestants were still considered Christians, were they not? Or do you not consider them Christians at all, in any way? From that I conclude that you must not really understand the true Scotsman argument.”

Did you even read the terse Wiki entry you linked? Seriously, it specifically mentions that ‘not a true Scotsman’ can be a legitimate statement, just like ‘not a true Catholic’ or ‘Not a true Southern Baptist’; these terms have definitions set by the leaders of the groups. This is much more akin to the council of the Boy Scouts of America saying ‘that kid isn’t a true Scout’.

“Since when!? You might wish Christianity advocated all that, but history clearly shows that it is quite the contrary.”

Oh, really? So the Aristotlean logic of St. Thomas hasn’t been used for centuries? What will I tell those thousands of scholars and kings that wrote all those books of law on those principles? From the time St. Justin Martyr argued that reason is the element of Man that is ‘in the image of God’ reason has been unassailable as one of the two pillars of the Church alongside Faith.

Quick! Name three dogmas of the Catholic Church that have changed!

I really liked your puerile dig at religion in politics. I see many atheists that have no problem with environmentalists lobbying against a factory or anarchists marching against globalization but feel that ’separation of church and state’ means ‘religious people have no voice’. Nonsense.

Db0 says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm - Edit

Yeap, unfortunately I’ve been quite busy.

Well, there are plenty of adults that, at heart, choose as they do out of less-than-mature reasons. My point is that you are singling out religious people for being mature - this is a universal. Some people simply never develop mature moral senses.

It’s a strange coincidence then that the majority of these people are religious. The majority of the christians never develop mature moral senses either, so I’m starting to see a patern here.
Just to clarify, I’m not saying to Atheism gives you morals. I am saying that religion prevents you from developing them as it gives you an easy way out and/or distorts your path. If anything, Atheism will force an already moral person to expand his morals in ways that make sense in the absence of religion, and most probably will lead him to Humanism.

Not always true. Some people, atheist or not, simply do not know right from wrong.

Yes, well, we’re not talking about the odd mental case here…

First off, there are plenty of religious environmentalists and environmental groups.

You’re just stating the exceptions that prove the rule. It is a fact that the Christian religion does not promote environmentalism in any way (which is strange by itself, since an “omniscient being” would know that without environmentalism the earth would not be able to support the population of then future. Not only then God did not inform people of this but he even led them in the wrong direction by telling them to exploit the environment he created for the to the full. Of course, this does not make sense for the “omniscient being” idea (not much do) but it does make sense when you look where the religion was conceived…in an desert, an enviroment so harsh that without exploitation you would not survive. But I digress)

Second, how many Objectivists are environmentalists? There are plenty of people in the ‘there’s no afterlife and *I* can’t take it with me, so screw the environment!’, aren’t there? Of course there are.

Ok first of all, when you say Objectivists, can you clarify what you mean? You mean Moral Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy or something else?
Nevertheless, the people that acts so selflessly, you can be certain will usually claim to belong to the major religion of their area, just so that they are not pestered. As a rule, Humanists respect the enviroment because, of course, it’s good for humanity.
The point I’m trying to make however is that Christianity tottaly ignores environmentalism, which produces the exploitation result. An atheist must find a reasoning that will allow him to ignore the moralily of destroying the environment for the human race. So, while an atheist, must be evil (in a sense) to do it, a christian might not even consider that he is doing a bad deed.

Religious people give more to actual charities (fighting hunger, aiding education, free clinics and hospitals) than do non-religious. The primary people on the ground in Asia and Latin America fighting sweat shops are religious people. And while Catholic Charities is giving billions in aid to the poor, the hungry, and the sick (regardless of religious affiliation, including atheists) I have yet to see an atheist group with a network of universities and charity hospitals.

Hah! I say Hah. Next thing I know you’ll be mentioning Mother Teresa as well…

There are plenty of atheists who think good deeds are for suckers (see my comment on Objectivists, above).

Why do you insist on Objectivism? Who said atheists were? Quit fighting your straw man.

Of course, this statement just ignores 2,000+ ideas like, say, Pax Christi, Just War theory, and the Quakers/Shakers, just to name a very few anti-war and anti-violence concepts that are purely religious.

Oh man…
If you’re going to mention the few religious pacifist organizations, should I start mentioning the many religious militant organizations? Just because you can give me an example, of people who do not fall in the point I made above does not mean it does not apply, as the many religious organizations that promote exactly that can attest. Not to mention your president (who speaks with God mind you) and his whole team, who has managed to throw your country in the most costly war, which was incidentally completely unnecessary.
How many atheist organizations have you seen lately that promote violence for the sake of atheism? And if you can show me one, I can the show you an atheist organization that is condemned by the vast majority of the atheists.

This would be a nice segue into, for example, the Communist concept of revolution and the wholesale export of war and terrorism by atheists during the last century.

You’re wrong there. It was the mustached people, not atheists that did that you know…oh wait no, it was white males…

What are you doing here, keeping atheism a secret? Nope - you are promoting it as objectively good. That is called (wait for it) proselytizing

Haha, No!
This is a website you see. I do not force it on anyone nor do force feed the information down anyone’s throat. Proselytism would require something more than that. Just so that we are on the same footing here. When I say proselytism, I mean something like door-to-door preaching, religion in school, children forced to believe etc. You seem to have a strange idea of proselytism.

By turning it into a true devotion to mercy and justice when possible and supressing it when not. Again, show me the strings of charity hospitals, colleges, etc. founded by atheist organizations that can compare with just the St. Jude network.

Yes, that is some nice rhetoric there (followed by an amusingly unrelated point to make you seem in the right without actually basing your opinion on anything else but rhetoric) but unfortunately, hypocrisy is exactly against what you say. What you might see as “True devotion to mercy and justice” just means that the hypocrite is hiding his true emotions. You cannot suppress hypocrisy because you don’t know about it unless it strikes and then it is too late. In any case we’re getting off subject here.

You got a problem with home schoolers? Or Southerners?

I hadn’t noticed that part, but now that you mentioned it, yes I do have a problem with homeschoolers that keep their children ignorant so that they are ripe to believe in their moronic religion. You are abusing your children by denying them proper education. As for you about page showing your distorted morality, only one example: “I oppose abortion and birth control”.
Damn Dixie!

Did you even read the terse Wiki entry you linked? Seriously, it specifically mentions that ‘not a true Scotsman’ can be a legitimate statement, just like ‘not a true Catholic’ or ‘Not a true Southern Baptist’; these terms have definitions set by the leaders of the groups. This is much more akin to the council of the Boy Scouts of America saying ‘that kid isn’t a true Scout’.

Did you even read what I wrote above? The text your quoted? “Christians” do not have a clear definition, as exemplified by the number of denominations. Hell, even within the same denomination you have definition problems. So unless you are prepared to admit that Orthodox’ and Protestants are not Christians at all, then you get the “True Scotsman” treatment.

Oh, really? So the Aristotlean logic of St. Thomas hasn’t been used for centuries? What will I tell those thousands of scholars and kings that wrote all those books of law on those principles? From the time St. Justin Martyr argued that reason is the element of Man that is ‘in the image of God’ reason has been unassailable as one of the two pillars of the Church alongside Faith

Oh will you please quit it with Aristotle? If anything, the problem is exactly that christianity based itself so much on Aristotelean reason and Stoicism. If anything, just because of the Aristotelean logic that you so seem to enjoy, Reason was spared only to the rich, noble and some designated clergy. The general population was kept in the dark. No Reason for them, only Faith. If they had a problem, their cleric/king/whatever would make the decision for them.

As for dogmas and stuff, I’m not certain what kind of examples you want, but, you know, when the Catholic Church has a definition problem, another schism occurs that takes another name and considers itself to have the “true dogma”. The Catholic church just gets to keep the name but all denominations all came from her.

I really liked your puerile dig at religion in politics. I see many atheists that have no problem with environmentalists lobbying against a factory or anarchists marching against globalization but feel that ’separation of church and state’ means ‘religious people have no voice’. Nonsense.

I’m glad you did.
I do not know what you have seen but why would an atheist have a problem with an environmentalist lobbying against a factory, unless he is anti-environemnt? Why would they have a problem with anarchists marching against globalization unless they support globalization? But part of the basic definition of an atheist means that he does not follow a religion so it is normal for them to promote separation of church and state. No we do not mean that religious have no voice (AKA, No, we’re not persecuting you, you’re just paranoid) just as long as that voice does not affect us through law. Nonsense!

Deep Thought says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm - Edit

“It’s a strange coincidence then that the majority of these people are religious.”

That’s virtually unprovable Unless you have a major sociological research study with clear parameters and a good sample, this is your obviously-biased opinion and nothing more. Indeed, go to any college Atheist club and I can gether enough counter-examples to make any point of your moot.

“” Not always true. Some people, atheist or not, simply do not know right from wrong.”

Yes, well, we’re not talking about the odd mental case here…”

Hardly needed: go to any divorce court or vice court and get back to me.

“You’re just stating the exceptions that prove the rule. ”

Usually code for ‘I can’t really argue this point’.

“It is a fact that the Christian religion does not promote environmentalism in any way”

Direct proof that you don’t know a thing about Levitical law, Distributist Theology, the Quaker/Shaker movements, the Amish… shall I continue?

“(which is strange by itself, since an “omniscient being” would know that without environmentalism the earth would not be able to support the population of then future. Not only then God did not inform people of this but he even led them in the wrong direction by telling them to exploit the environment he created for the to the full. Of course, this does not make sense for the “omniscient being” idea (not much do) but it does make sense when you look where the religion was conceived…in an desert, an enviroment so harsh that without exploitation you would not survive. But I digress)”

Wow! First, study up on the Second Demographic Shift, now underway (I have a ton of links at my site); Second, it is obvious that you have never been to Israel! While the Negev is pretty rough, Galilee is a garden spot!

“k first of all, when you say Objectivists, can you clarify what you mean? You mean Moral Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy or something else?
Nevertheless, the people that acts so selflessly, you can be certain will usually claim to belong to the major religion of their area, just so that they are not pestered. As a rule, Humanists respect the enviroment because, of course, it’s good for humanity.”

Big O Rand Objectivists: whom you seem not to know a single thing about.

“The point I’m trying to make however is that Christianity tottaly ignores environmentalism”

This is ignoring the point I made, and which you conceded, just a few lines above. There are many Christian environmentalists and environmental groups.

“Hah! I say Hah.”

So…. Linking to a site that admits that there are massive Christian charities is, sonhow, in your mind, a refutation of Christian charities existence?

“Why do you insist on Objectivism? Who said atheists were?”

Not all atheists are Objectivists, but all Objectivists are atheists. Therefore they ar an easily-identifiable group of atheists with well-defined concepts that refute your claims. For example, your claim that ‘…an atheist with a developed moral sense will, most probably be an Humanist and an altruist…’ would send an Objectivist into gales of mocking laughter at your stupidity (I am mentioning their attitudes, not mine).

“Quit fighting your straw man.”

You make statements like ‘The majority of the christians never develop mature moral senses either’ and *I* am erecting straw men? Pull the other one.

“If you’re going to mention the few religious pacifist organizations, should I start mentioning the many religious militant organizations? Just because you can give me an example, of people who do not fall in the point I made above does not mean it does not apply”

Actually - yeah, it does. You are making broad comments about all Christians ]like “For a Christian… …nstigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed.”] and then dismissing evidence that you are wrong with a wave of the hand! Here’s the counter-version of your *cough* ‘arguments’, “All atheists are amoral!”, “Well, some have morals” “That’s the exception that proves the rule! You can’t mention those few atheists with morals and claim that it refutes my claim that atheists are amoral!”

Its lame.

“You’re wrong there. It was the mustached people, not atheists that did that you know…oh wait no, it was white males…”

Go read about the Spanish Civil War and get back to me. Oh, or about the Khmer Rouge. Or Maoism. Then tell me, with a straight face, that atheist organizations didn’t slaughter 100 million people in the 20th Century alone. Also, please make your notes about how Maosim was the product of White males. Ditto with the Khmer Rouge.

Noun 1. proselytism - the practice of proselytizing
persuasion, suasion - the act of persuading (or attempting to persuade); communication intended to induce belief or action

Who has the skewed idea what proselytism is?

“yes I do have a problem with homeschoolers that keep their children ignorant so that they are ripe to believe in their moronic religion.”

Poor man. My 10 year old son probably knows as much comparative religion as you do. Scratch that - based on your commetns here, he knows more.

“Damn Dixie!”

The South will Rise Again - economically.

““Christians” do not have a clear definition”

They don’t? I could have sworn those ecumenical groups in the 1700-1800’s worked out that it had to do with Christ, somehow….

“Reason was spared only to the rich, noble and some designated clergy. The general population was kept in the dark. No Reason for them, only Faith. If they had a problem, their cleric/king/whatever would make the decision for them.”

And, thus, the Catholic Church created the universities to ensure that as many people of all classes could read and understand not just the scriptures read to them, but the works of the great minds of antiquity like Socrates, Livy, Cicero, and… Wait, what? What do you mean that Universities and schools were founded by Christains, especially Catholics, trying to spread knowledge? This surely can’t be true! Db0 and his pals claim the Church kept people ignorant! Who am I to believe, Db0, or history??!!

“No we do not mean that religious have no voice (AKA, No, we’re not persecuting you, you’re just paranoid) just as long as that voice does not affect us through law”

My very point, sir, and you are too obtuse to realize it.

Db0, I find you to be less than engaging, but very entertaining in a ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ sorta’ way.

Db0 says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:12 pm - Edit

That’s virtually unprovable Unless you have a major sociological research study with clear parameters and a good sample, this is your obviously-biased opinion and nothing more. Indeed, go to any college Atheist club and I can gether enough counter-examples to make any point of your moot.

College Atheist club? You really have these? Seriously? Is it like an evil atheist conspiracy thing?

Direct proof that you don’t know a thing about Levitical law, Distributist Theology, the Quaker/Shaker movements, the Amish… shall I continue?

Indeed I don’t. Wikipedia does not seem to know much about them either (except the Amish, Quakers & Shakers who don’t seem any more environmentalist at first glance). I do know what the bible does not mention though. What random (fringe) denominations do does not concern me much (especially when those denominations have their own special drawbacks). I’m talking about Christianity in general and you keep bringing me examples that don’t really represent it.

Wow! First, study up on the Second Demographic Shift, now underway (I have a ton of links at my site);

I have no idea what it is. Wikipedia neither and nor does the search function of your site…

Big O Rand Objectivists: whom you seem not to know a single thing about.

No I don’t. Should I?

Not all atheists are Objectivists, but all Objectivists are atheists. Therefore they ar an easily-identifiable group of atheists with well-defined concepts that refute your claims. For example, your claim that ‘…an atheist with a developed moral sense will, most probably be an Humanist and an altruist…’ would send an Objectivist into gales of mocking laughter at your stupidity (I am mentioning their attitudes, not mine)

Who fucking cares? atheism is not a philosophy. Whatever these people believe does not describe any other atheist in the least. They are atheists but not Humanists. Once again I did not propose atheism as a moral agent. That would be quite silly.
Also my claim was “If anything, atheism will force an already moral person to expand his morals in ways that make sense in the absence of religion, and most probably will lead him to Humanism” which is a bit different from what you say I claimed.
For some reason you believe that you will challenge my points by going “Well, some of you do it as well, so nyah!”. You fail to realize that this does not weaken my argument nor describe me in any way as I don’t belong in their group and the only common thing I have is absence of belief in a god.

You make statements like ‘The majority of the christians never develop mature moral senses either’ and *I* am erecting straw men? Pull the other one.

You’re right, I should have include all monotheists…

Actually - yeah, it does. You are making broad comments about all Christians ]like “For a Christian… …nstigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed.”] and then dismissing evidence that you are wrong with a wave of the hand! Here’s the counter-version of your *cough* ‘arguments’, “All atheists are amoral!”, “Well, some have morals” “That’s the exception that proves the rule! You can’t mention those few atheists with morals and claim that it refutes my claim that atheists are amoral!”

Oh FFS! I was making an example. Obviously not all Christians are the same and not all examples I make will apply to all. The same way that anyone who says that “All Christians are peaceful” is wrong, since apparently this is not correct. It is impossible to make a generic statement for all Christians since there are just so many versions of them, each with his own little differences (quite human behaviour mind you. Just goes to show that religion does not have any impact on that).
The point is that there christians that instigate was and deal in weapons. Their faith is not affected at all however. If christianity gave them morals, then whence did this come from? Hell, the whole Catholic church instigated the crusades. What other example do you need?

Go read about the Spanish Civil War and get back to me. Oh, or about the Khmer Rouge. Or Maoism. Then tell me, with a straight face, that atheist organizations didn’t slaughter 100 million people in the 20th Century alone. Also, please make your notes about how Maosim was the product of White males. Ditto with the Khmer Rouge.

Yeah, well, go and tweak your sarcasm detector.
Ah, and no it was not atheist organizations that slaughtered people. But I’m not going to argue the point here since it has been rebutted in so many places by much more eloquent people than me.

Noun 1. proselytism - the practice of proselytizing
persuasion, suasion - the act of persuading (or attempting to persuade); communication intended to induce belief or action

Are we going to fight over definitions now by quoting online dictionaries?

1. (intransitive) To encourage or induce someone to join a religious movement, political party or other cause or organization
2. (transitive) To convert (someone) to one’s own faith or beliefs.

It’s pathetic…
I’ve already told you what I consider proselytism and why I am not doing it. By having putting a post on webpage I am not actively “persuading” anyone, just stating my opinion.

Poor man. My 10 year old son probably knows as much comparative religion as you do. Scratch that - based on your commetns here, he knows more.

Yes, yes, I’m certain that your wife and you can adequately teach your kid all sciences as well as a school of trained professionals. Ah wait, I guess you don’t teach him science eh?

They don’t? I could have sworn those ecumenical groups in the 1700-1800’s worked out that it had to do with Christ, somehow….

Exactly…somehow

And, thus, the Catholic Church created the universities to ensure that as many people of all classes could read and understand not just the scriptures read to them, but the works of the great minds of antiquity like Socrates, Livy, Cicero, and… Wait, what? What do you mean that Universities and schools were founded by Christains, especially Catholics, trying to spread knowledge? This surely can’t be true! Db0 and his pals claim the Church kept people ignorant! Who am I to believe, Db0, or history??!!

Bhaaahaahahaha! You mean before of after they closed all the philosophical schools and burned the libraries? Or maybe it was just a while after they killed the philosophers and threatened to kill anyone with a different cosmological opinion that the catholically accepted?
If anything, the universities they founded were there to teach the “approved” knowledge.
That’s golden man. Trying to show how the Catholic church promoted knowledge when the history you mention shows the exact opposite.

My very point, sir, and you are too obtuse to realize it.

Db0, I find you to be less than engaging, but very entertaining in a ‘Plan 9 from Outer Space’ sorta’ way.

Oh, we are at the part were we start the insults now?

Deep Thought says:
October 4th, 2007 at 4:22 am - Edit

“Wikipedia does not seem to know much about them either (except the Amish, Quakers & Shakers who don’t seem any more environmentalist at first glance). I do know what the bible does not mention though. What random (fringe) denominations do does not concern me much”

Classic! Oh, just classic. Levitical law is the basis of theology for Orthodox, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews (i.e., 80% of all observants Jews) and Distributist Theology is the economic and environmental theology of the Catholic Church (i.e., about 51% of all Chritians ( and you call them the concerns of “fringe” denominations because you can’t find the theologies in Wikipedia! Oh, that’s rich. Man. I hope you don’t mind, but I am almost compelled to quote this in a blog post of my own.

In the meantime, go to Wikipedia and search on ‘Distributism’ and get back to me after you follow the links to the numerous quotes on what the bible actually says about shepherding the earth and being a good steward of what God has left you (Man, did you ever go to Sunday school?) then go to a decent library and get a real book about real theology.

I love how you admit your ignorance of the topic you are trying to debunk!

Buddy, the phrase ‘‘…an atheist with a developed moral sense will, most probably be an Humanist and an altruist…’’ is a cut and paste job from your own writing, above, and is certainly a *DIRECT* quote.

“It is impossible to make a generic statement for all Christians since there are just so many versions of them”

Yet, as I showed by quoting you, you freely salt this very discussion with broad, sweeping generalizations. Have I ever said there aren’t people that claim to be Christians that are bad? No. I have been saying “you are making both general statements that are obviously false and unsupported statements as if they were facts’. If it is, indeed, “…impossible to make a generic statement for all Christians …” then please stop making them.

“But I’m not going to argue the point here since it has been rebutted in so many places by much more eloquent people than me”

Where? I am curious to know who can prove Communism is not an explicitly atheist ideology, that’s for sure!

“Yes, yes, I’m certain that your wife and you can adequately teach your kid all sciences as well as a school of trained professionals. Ah wait, I guess you don’t teach him science eh?”

I thought you read more of my blog? My wife is a biologist with an Ivy League education and my minor was in physics. Want to try again? Also, its obvious you don’t know anything about homeschooling or you would be aware that Ivy League schools have special teams just to recruit home schooled kids for their science and math programs….

“Exactly…somehow”

Failure of your sarcasm detector! Any good encyclopedia or dictionary has a very solid definition of Christian. Once more, you totally fail to understand the ‘true scotsman’ argument. I remember spending about 3 days on it in Philo 235….

“Bhaaahaahahaha! You mean before of after they closed all the philosophical schools and burned the libraries? Or maybe it was just a while after they killed the philosophers and threatened to kill anyone with a different cosmological opinion that the catholically accepted?”

Proof that urban legends trump history education in the modern world.

Db0, you started off making broad claims about all Christians. I called you on it and you have quickly progressed from trying to defend your positions to admitting that broad claims are not possible. I suspect that you are guilty of no more that unclear writing, but I hope that you change from saying things like For a Christian… …instigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed” to, for example, “… for some Christians…”. it would make your point clearer.

As I said before, the fact that some Christians aren’t really doing the things Christian theology demands is neither new nor a condemnation of Christian theology - it is a condemnation of the individuals involved. G.K. Chesterton put it this way, ‘Christianity is not a thing tried and found wanting, it is a thing seen as difficult and not tried’. I knwo moral atheists and I know immoral atheists - the immoral ones do not cause me to condemn atheism as amoral. as you admit, your statements that imply certain behaviors or attitudes of *all* Christians are simply false - there are too many (and too varied) Christians for them to be true. That has been my point all along.

And in a kind way, I want to make a suggestion: if you want to write about atheism and Christianity, please study them in a serious manner. Objectivists, as I mention often, are very active atheist humanists. Your ignorance of their ideas is a loss to you. There is much good in Christian theology, even for a non-believer.

Deep Thought says:
October 4th, 2007 at 4:31 am - Edit

Sorry, ended early. If you are an environmentlaist, even a casual one, Distributist theology can be very refreshing. I recommend the book “Small is Beautiful” by Schumacher, a non-Christian who was fascinated with Distributist thought.

As for what I have on it, there should be a Distributism category listed and my older stuff is here

http://andune.blogspot.com/search/label/Distributionism

Listen, I am obviously what you would consider an ultra-conservative Catholic. And, really, I am. But as a hard-core, ultra-conservative Catholic theologian I don’t see atheists as enemies, nor as a bloc. You shouldn’t see me and mine that way, either.

Minion4Hire says:
October 4th, 2007 at 7:26 am - Edit

Wow. There’s a lot of content to wade through here. I’ll try to add to just a few topics for now, perhaps addressing more when I have more time.

Of my limited experience with Distributism, it seems in many ways right at home with anarchism despite the fact that the Catholic church officially disapproves of it. More accurate still it appears somewhat libertarian, but I digress. I’ll take a better look at the link you provided when I am better able.

As far as the other environmentalism/charity aspects listed here, I think in any group of people there will be some which will offer support for and against each, regardless of religious affiliation. It’s not really a matter of religion. It could be argued that they are “moral” issues, but even then I’m more inclined to say that the human race is just generally empathetic and willing to help other human beings in order to further our species as a whole. It’s a genetic predisposition to further the existence of one’s own race, and those who don’t support charities or environmentalists take the opposing “selfish-gene” concept, but all further the gene pool, only that some are more immediate while others are methodically long term.

Meanwhile, the fact that there are “Christian environmentalist groups” does not mean that Christianity has any stake in environmentalism in any way; it means that some of the demographic which does support the environment happens to be mobilized through their church, which would also make sense considering that an individual’s position of charity for instance is likely to be shared by those with similar beliefs. Past that they could just as easily be rallied to the cause by their local church leaders who are of the environmentalist persuasion and again nothing to do with a specific position of the church overall or that denomination. There are various examples of “rival” Christian denominations both for and against the environmentalist movement, both providing biblical quotation to support their own positions. And all this shows is that if you look hard enough you will find a biblical passage to support your side of an argument, one way or another.

On a bit of a side note, without yet knowing Distributism’s stance on environmental issues, I will say that while half of all Christians are Catholic, half of all Americans are Protestant, so it’s message may have been overshadowed somewhat by the resident majority.

Ultimately, while a religious group of any kind can take a position on the environment, that position becomes a reflection of a person’s own beliefs which they may or may not support through scripture.

But one thing I’d like to state is that attempting to lump atheists into a particular “moral” group is quite asinine, as is associating them with communists, environmentalists, or any other political/lobbyist group. Atheism involves one philosophical position - lack of belief in a deity/rejection of theism - and does not infer other moral or philosophical positions. To think otherwise is presumptuous if not prejudice and frankly Deep Thought, makes you just as obtuse and generic in your reasoning as you claim Db0 to be. I think ultimately you’re both making some broad statements in an attempt to further your own arguments, but I’ll leave the analyzing to the psychologists. An atheist can hold other philosophical positions (as any person can, regardless of denomination) such as communism, socialism, fascism, and others.

To try to keep this as brief as possible, the difference between the Spanish civil war and the Spanish inquisition is that the civil war was not and could not be done “in the name of atheism”.

I would be willing to wager however, without attempting to find numbers, that statistically a large portion of atheists subscribe or are open to humanism if only because it offers a secular moral position. But I will also say that being an atheist myself I don’t take to humanism; although I agree with many of its positions, I am a bit too moderate to state that I absolutely agree with/adhere to their talking points. Abortion for instance is a topic which is a bit more complicated than most humanists or Christians, left or right, make it out to be. The only reason I am as close as I am to agreeing with humanism is because their main focus is that of “basic” human rights and freedoms; ie. I do think that women should have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies if they accept the risks that may accompany that.

Again, I’ll try to go through the current talking points more thoroughly when I have more time. This is turning into quite a discussion!

Deep Thought says:
October 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pm - Edit

“the difference between the Spanish civil war and the Spanish inquisition is that the civil war was not and could not be done “in the name of atheism””

Tell that to the nuns burned alive by Communists and Anarchists who were, to quote them, ‘ridding the world of the poison of religion’. Or to the worhippers put into ‘reeducation camps’ in China because ‘Communism teaches thet religion is an error of thinking to be expunged’.

If you want to try to claim that the Spanish Inquisition was about religion, period, and ignore the serious socio-political issues that led the Spanish government to request the Church provide expert investigators, well - then it is just as fair to claim that the Spanish Civil War was about religion. After all, plenty of people on both sides of the War claimed that.

Minion4Hire, my complaint with Db0 is that he (assumption) is taking a very complex group (monotheists, essentially) and making blanket statements about them that are contradicted by fact. Your statement “…the fact that there are “Christian environmentalist groups” does not mean that Christianity has any stake in environmentalism in any way…” misses the point - Db0 was claiming that there are no Christian environmentalists because Christianity has a stake *opposed to* environmentalism. This is untrue in both cases. Indeed, the entire paragraph that contains that statement is a refutation of *Db0’s* writings, above, more than mine.

“ttempting to lump atheists into a particular “moral” group is quite asinine, as is associating them with communists, environmentalists, or any other political/lobbyist group. Atheism involves one philosophical position - lack of belief in a deity/rejection of theism”

As I said before, not all atheists are Objectivists, but all Objectivists are atheists. Not all atheists are Communists but Communism is an atheist ideology. My examples are an attempt, seemingly lost of both you and Db0, to demonstrate that attempting to say something like “all monotheists are x’ is pretty egregious. After all, atheists are as varied as, well, the groups I listed in demonstration. If you are calling me on the carpet for my statements that point out that certain groups of atheists have done certain things because you infer I am discussing ALL atheists, why are you not also slamming Db0 for gems such as “I mainly target Christians in this article but I’m certain you can plainly see how this can apply not only to all three monotheistic religions but also to all the ones that promise after-life rewards for specific values” or [synthesis] ‘the majority of monotheists never develop a mature moral sense’?! After all, he *explicitly* indicts ALL monotheists.

While I accept hypocrisy as a human condition, I didn’t expect to see it so possibly true in the comments thread of a piece condemning hypocrisy!

Db0 says:
October 4th, 2007 at 5:38 pm - Edit

Deep Thought, I am not making blanket statements about Christians. I may not be perfect in expressing myself (working on it) but you have a talent for twisting my words to fit your arguments and provoke an emotional response from me that apparently makes me express myself even worse.
I really don’t enjoy discussing with you so I’m going to keep this short…

- I did not think that there are no environmentalist christians. I say that Christianity does not promote environmentalism. The fact that some Christian groups have taken on these values does not make any difference. It certainly does not come from Christianity, regardless of what some later people have thought of.
- Communism is not an atheist ideology. If you think that, you are a buffoon.It is an socioeconomic system. Atheism does not have anything to add to that and nor is it based on it. People that kill religious people in the name of Communism do not do it because they are atheist, but rather because they are misguided totalitarians. Furthermore I did not mean to say that “all Christians are X” and I’m an enemy of generalizations like that. However I do see what Christianity promotes. It is not pacifism or humanism.
- The previous to last of my quotes you wrote does not generalize on people, just states to whom this article applies to. The last quote could have been stated better but the situation in the middle east pretty much proves my point. The more theocratic the community, the more ridiculous the morals seem to be.
- I’ve not read a lot of the stuff you mentioned but I will try at my earliest convenience. Nevetheless, these are just part of the evolution christianity has always done to fit with the times. Since the definition of Christianity is so vague at points, as Minion says, you can always find the point the reinforces what you want to believe. I am not afraid to admit my ignorance, nor change my mind if appropriate argument is presented.
- The closing of the philosophical schools is not an urban legend. No more than the inquisition is. Nor is the burning of Libraries and books. I have no taste to argue this point with you under this article.

Finally, I do not care what you think Christianity promotes (and that most christians don’t follow or else we would live in paradise i presume), every christian has his own ideas anyway. I look at what the Bible writes and how people act according to it. The same applies to the other holy books and religions. I find that history and current events pretty much agree with me.

Deep Thought says:
October 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm - Edit

I see. You aren’t making blanket statements about Christians, you are making blanket statements about *Christianity*. Somehow you seem better able to tell Christian theologians (who, BTW, spend their lives studying things like religion, scripture, philosophy, etc.) what Christianity *really* teaches. This reminds me of a French guy I knew in California that loved to tell us poor benighted Americans what America is *really* about.
The point I was making with the sheer massive numbers of actual Christians that disagree with you is that there are many people actually within the group you are critiquing demonstrating hat you are wrong.

“Communism is not an atheist ideology. If you think that, you are a buffoon.”

You keep getting funnier. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? The writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao? Do you realize that the ’socio’ part of ’socio-economic system’ includes aspects of society such as law, vulture, and (yes) religion? Have you studied the history of the suppression of religion by Communism whenever it had power and then realized that the collapse of the Soviet Union emanated from the nations with the strongest surviving independent religious groups - just as was predicted by Communist theorists when they began their crackdowns?

Hold it - of course not. Otherwise, you would know that the Communist ideology embraces atheism and, by the nature of Communist theory, promotes the imposition of atheism to further the development of Man. So not all atheists are Communists, but Communism is an explicitly atheist ideology.

“The more theocratic the community, the more ridiculous the morals seem to be.”

Let me make a few counter-examples, if I may. Hussein’s Iraq (secular nation); Khmer Rouge Cambodia (explicitly atheist); Mao’s China (also explicitly atheist); Republican Spain (also explicitly atheist). We can cut out Hussain’s Iraq and Republican Spain entirely and just focus on the two explicitly, vocally atheistic nations of Khmer Rouge Cambodia and China while Mao was alive. Their total death toll (internal only)? No less than *no less than* THIRTY MILLION. 30 million people dead under explicitly non-theistic governments, of their own citizens only, in single generation. It works out to about 1 million people a year, or more than 2,700 people every day for three decades.

To put that in perspective, you would have to slaughter ever man, woman, and child in modern day Israel 4.2 times to reach this (minimum) number of deaths.

In contrast the First and Second Intifadas have killed less than 10,000 people over 20 years, or about 4 days worth of deaths under the atheistic China of Mao.

Isreal is a secular nation with religious citizens. So is Syria. So is Jordan. So is Egypt. So is Lebanon. America has one of the highest rates of weekly church attendance (a great proxy for ‘level of devoutness’, a term I despise) - how ‘ridiculous’ are the morals of America? How about compared to the morals of the oh-so-anti-theistic Cambodia of the Killing Fields?

“he closing of the philosophical schools is not an urban legend. No more than the inquisition is. Nor is the burning of Libraries and books. I have no taste to argue this point with you under this article”

Fine, this is your sandbox - If I write on this with history cites, will you come by and comment?

“Finally, I do not care what you think Christianity promotes (and that most christians don’t follow or else we would live in paradise i presume), every christian has his own ideas anyway. I look at what the Bible writes…”

Wow. I know you read my ‘about’ page (although you didn’t seem to remember much beyond I am anti-abortion). You remember that I am a theologian, right? You probably don’t know this, but Catholic theologians are expected to read (and are tested on reading!) the Bible in their native language (in my case English), French, German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, plus a ‘research language’ of their choice (which I will leave out, since it may compromise my anonymity). My first thesis (which I will not name fully) concerned the Wellhausen Hypothesis (my second thesis, if you care, was on the impact of theological anthropology on economic decisions by secular agents).

In other words, I know an appeal to authority when I hear one. In this case, you are setting yourself up as the authority (”I don’t care what any Christian or secular scholar says, thinks, or does - I know what the Bible *really* says!”). Sorry, but am having some issues accepting your authority in this matter. One of the key things that tips me off that maybe you aren’t an authority on the Bible and what it ‘really’ says is from this very statement, to wit,

“I do not care what you think Christianity promotes (and that most christians don’t follow or else we would live in paradise i presume)”

See, the bible not only never promises paradise on Earth, it states that paradise on Earth is impossible. Striving for the Kingdom of God is a task for the Earth but will never be accomplished here until the end of time (literally). Indeed, the clear message of the Gospels is that Christians will suffer on the Earth and that this an unavoidable consequence of free will in imperfect beings.

Db0, I appreciate your admission that I am eliciting a strong emotional response from you. That’s tough to cop to, even online. I started out just trying to point out that the language you used here is overbroad - it reads to me (and to my wife, Deeper Thought) as an idictment of all Christians, even all monotheists. Claiming that it is actually just an indictment of Christianity in general is no better, really.

But I have stuck around because you seem to honestly be seeking for Truth. Big task, looking for Truth. If you are serious about ‘being an atheist’, you really must read up on Objectivism. You might disagree with them (indeed, I hope you will) but they are largely setting the agenda for atheists these days. If you want to continue to try to speak out against religion, please (and I mean this nicely) learn a lot more than you know right now. You don’t have to understand the impact of Nag Hammadi on documentary theory or of the Copper Scroll on textual analysis, but please at least know what, say, Catholic Theology really says about war and arms dealers.

Minion4Hire says:
October 6th, 2007 at 1:48 am - Edit

Hopefully I can address both sides of the discussion here with one quote from the communist manifesto.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

This is the problem, both in what Deep Thought and Db0 continue to debate. People exploit other people to get what they want. Corrupt authoritarian regimes and dictators dupe the people into supporting them by offering them a revolutionary alternative (ie. communism) without ever implimenting what they claim. Religious figureheads issue crusades and fatwas to focus the people towards an external enemy, or eliminate external or competitive political opposition. And obviously it’s not all as simplistic as that, just examples of what can occur. Often times one movement starts with good intentions, but is later corrupted by those attempting exploitation and manipulation.

I don’t entirely agree with Db0 in regards to “more theocracy = ridiculous morals”, but at the same time I think morals are too subjective to make such a statement in the first place. However, the secular states that Deep Thought references are both similar and different from the Sieges of Antioch, Spanish Inquisition and other religiously focused movements. They are similar in that they’re all attempting to rid themselves of those who oppose their goals or positions, and they all do so with varying amounts of death. Granted, the numbers are far greater in regards to more recent dictators, but I wouldn’t attribute this to the ruthlessness of the dictator or regime in power as much as how society has changed since medieval warfare. The population was not only countless times larger, increasing not only the total available people to kill but more importantly those against a particular regime, but each of these individual leaders held far more power reigning over so many more people, both in terms of resources and technological advancement. And this isn’t to argue that “Christians with the mindset of Bohemund of Taranto would have caused more death if they had the resources of Stalin” but only to propose that arguing death by scale is not as straightforward as one may think. Motive is also an interesting (if sticky) subject. Stalin, despite being a sick and despicable bastard, wasn’t trying to take back a worthless piece of land that some people concider holy.

But past all that, Communism (or should I specify further with Marxism) isn’t atheistic. I find that to be false. Marx really takes a neutral stance on religion in that he finds it of no consequence. Marx didn’t vie for the destruction of religion, or the creation of an atheist state (of course I won’t speak for Lenin on this). He was somewhat deluded if not simply incorrect that the “total disappearance of class antagonisms” was the overall solution to the worlds problems, but he was not trying to destroy religion. Stalin tried to destroy religion if only in part because of his paranoid and megalomania (perhaps moreso with Jong Il) and wished to destroy anything that might oppose him. When he was unable to destroy the church he instead USED it, and instituted the Roman Orthodox as the official church of the state, and in many ways backed it wholeheartedly in order to gain cooperation and compliance. Ultimately it was because of this that those who embraced the church came out as strong as they did. Communism is generally indifferent to religion, unless it promotes “class antagonisms”, but different “Communists” have viewed religion in varying ways. China for example doesn’t have a problem with religion insofar as it is controlled by the state (ie. Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association). They do and have however, ruthlessly eliminated any opposition to the state.

Nearly every communist state which has come into existence has either done so under false pretenses or quickly become corrupt, so it really just has a poor track record in general and is hard to judge, as the “ideal” communist society has never even come close to existence.

Anyways, I need to stop now, as I’ve already spent far more time on this than I truly have the time for. But these always are damned stimulating discussions!

Db0 says:
October 6th, 2007 at 9:13 am - Edit

I will attempt to reply in full when I have time but for now, if you wish to discuss this paricular subject, I urge you to do it under my previous article which is at least more relevant.

It may not be as eloquent as many many others on the out there but It’s a start

Deep Thought says:
October 9th, 2007 at 7:00 am - Edit

Minion4Hire,
First, I must say - I laughed out loud when I realized that you were attempting to make a point with a quote from the Communist Manifesto. And when I realized that after quoting this passage of the Communist Manifesto,

“But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

[emphasis added] and then state just a few paragraphs later,

“Communism (or should I specify further with Marxism) isn’t atheistic.”

Let us look at a few more quotes from Marx:

“…criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism”

” Once the essence of man and of nature, man as a natural being and nature as a human reality, has become evident in practical life, in sense experience, the quest for an ALIEN being, a being above man and nature (a quest which is an avowal of the unreality of man and nature) becomes impossible in practice. ATHEISM, as a denial of this unreality, is no longer meaningful, for atheism is a NEGATION OF GOD and seeks to assert by this negation the EXISTENCE OF MAN. Socialism no longer requires such a roundabout method; it begins from the THEORETICAL and PRACTICAL SENSE PERCEPTION of man and nature as essential beings. It is positive human SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS, no longer a self-consciousness attained through the negation of religion.”

” The abolition of religion as the ILLUSORY HAPPINESS OF MEN, is a demand for their REAL HAPPINESS. The call to abandon their lllusions about their condition is a CALL TO ABANDON A CONDITION WHICH REQUIRES ILLUSIONS.”

“Religion is the groan of the oppressed, the sentiment of a heartless world, and at the same time the spirit of a condition deprived of spirituality. ”

I could go on a lot longer, but I am too lazy to dig out my copy of “Selected Essays” or the Manifesto from the basement library and hand copy them. Let me just point you to the Atheist Encyclopedia and their listing of Karl as one of the most famous atheists in history. And let me further point to all those theorists of Communism that promoted Communism as a ‘cure’ for religion during Marx’ lifetime who received his approval.

Actually, I believe that we have seen as close to ‘ideal’ Communism as is possible, mainly in rural Maoist China and in Cambodia. The thing is, Marx and Engels were just so cery *wrong* about very key things, like the nature of Man, that ‘ideal’ Communism is pretty hellish.

Deep Thought says:
October 9th, 2007 at 7:28 am - Edit

Db0,
OK - broad genralizations I can stand; attempting to characterize all Christians as stupid I have heard so many times it makes me laugh; but this! In the post you linked you said,

“Even if you compare Stalin’s and Mao’s to religious leaders like (this time correctly) Hitler, Mussolini, King Justinian and even Bush, you will see that were the first did what they did for the benefit of their country (albeit at a high cost of human lives within the same country they were benefiting) with tangible results (USSR become a superpower and China is on the same track right now), the later did their atrocities for no other specific reason than to follow demented (religious) ideals and/or satisfy their own (or, as in the case of Bush, the people that move their strings) lust for power.”

You actually claim that Justinian I (I assume - I have no idea who the heck ‘King Justinian’ is, but Justinian I was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire), the man who codified the Corpus Juris Civilis which is the basis of law for, oh, WESTERN CIVILIZATION, is a lame-a$$punk compared to Hitler??!!! You want to claim that the man who launched the Vandalic and Gothic Wars to *reclaim* territories seized by invaders was *cough* ‘[did this] for no other specific reason than to follow demented (religious) ideals and/or satisfy [his] own lust for power’ . Justinian, who decided to pick the best man rather than the most popular man for the job, resulting in the Nika Riots as people attempted to overthrow him to put a more popular man on the throne was *obviously driven only by a lust for power.

That was sarcasm, by the way.

And to compare Stalin favorably to Bush!!!!! Sweet heavens to Betsy, man! Stalin purposefully starved no less than 2 million of his own citizens to death to make a freakin’ POINT was not doing so “for the benefit of their country” as you claim, but in a naked rush for power. Yeah, Bush is *mush* worse than Stalin.

That was more sarcasm, by the way.

I will briefly pause to point out that you are also glaringly wrong about you “key point”. You said,

“Every religious person is immoral to the eyes of every other religion.”

Wrong. Wrong-o. Wrongety-wrong.

The Judeo-Christian religious group fully believes, largely, that there is a difference between being ‘moral’ and being ‘righteous’. Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, and Sunnis all state, very baldly, that you can be moral and be all sorts of religions. Calvinists almost *insist* that non-Christians can be very moral! Islam states explicitly that any monotheist is to be *assumed* to be moral until they prove otherwise. Catholic tradition venerates many Jewish figures and holds up some pagans as exemplars of virtue. Jewish theology has spoken of ‘righteous gentiles’ for something like 3,000 years.

Then there are Buddhists, who are even more prone to believe anyone can be moral. Or the rather accomodating folks in the pagan communities. Zoroastrians; Mitraists; on and on and on I could go.

In other words, your statement is almost the opposite of reality.

But, once more, your fevered attempts to claim that Bush is worse than Hitler or Stalin because Bush is after power (just a few months before Bush will leave office and be less famous and less rich than Madonna, may I add) but Hitler and Stalin were trying to improve their nations is, well, contemptible.

Minion4Hire says:
October 9th, 2007 at 2:25 pm - Edit

I did not say that Marx wasn’t atheist. What I was trying to say (among other things) is that communism doesn’t preclude religion according to Marx’s own description of his ideas. There would only be a problem if religion were to promote elitism or act as a dividing force between the upper and lower classes, but the next question would be how you would define that.

Marx’s personal agenda may have been against religion, but I feel (at least some of) his ideas were greater than that. As I stated earlier, I agree with you in that Marx was somewhat deluded, and put to much trust (and in other ways distrust) in humanity in general.

Minion4Hire says:
October 9th, 2007 at 2:35 pm - Edit

I just noticed something. I think you failed to realize that Marx is defending his position from the assertions of others. You quote “But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion…” as Marx’s position, while he is only presenting a counter argument which could potentially be voiced by his opposition.

Reread what I quoted. In fact I’ll post it without the blockquote and add emphasis to make it easier to distinguish.

——

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

——

Bold text is Marx’s position, italicised text is the argument he feels the opposition will present, and he addresses it accordingly.

Minion4Hire says:
October 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm - Edit

That last paragraph is also Marx’s position, but it’s not showing as bold in IE. Just thought I’d note that as well.

Db0 says:
October 9th, 2007 at 5:13 pm - Edit

I’ve posted a reply related to the communism argument here

Deep Thought says:
October 10th, 2007 at 7:02 pm - Edit

Minion4Hire,
I understand that Marx’s position in religion was complex; but he did not object when following Communist theorists were outspoken in their ideological and organized opposition to religion and all Communist regimes were/are extremely hostile to religion on (as they state) ideological grounds. Certainly there are things like the Liberation Theology movements that attempted to meld Communism and religion - but these groups were always small, unorganized, and never rose to control a political aprty, let alone a nation.

Further, we are wandering a bit far afield of the original statement which is this: Db0 was too broad in his claims leading to statements that are at best nonsensical.

NMT says:
October 14th, 2007 at 4:39 pm - Edit

Hi! All-of-you@
I think that all of you are missing the actual point of this chat. I neither understood what’s happening with Marx around here…

— D.T.@ “I understand that Marx’s position in religion was complex”.

No it wasn’t complex!! the religious position of Marx was very clear and his positions against religion too. I am sorry but the rest of your last reply is historically, philosophically and logically impossible.
He explained to his _7 years old daughter_ why (G)od(s) plays a double-sided role in History: “Maintenance of primitive relationships of domination inside societies. In favor of the exploiters” and “Deviation of the _real human freedom and happiness_” It is, creative and free production without capitalistic alienation of value(s)) because of real meanings and values of human experience are alienated towards the _false necessity_ of ownership and permanence. “They _seek the purposes of real life in heaven_”. Real life sucks but meanwhile they thought they are virtually happy. This premises are what is consigned in the famous phrase: “Religion is the Opium of the People” or better yet: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions”. But the character of Marx is not the same most charlatans and pseudo-intellectuals use to show. He does not speak through metaphors, the complete content of his phrase is purely _dialectic_, given that it shows us the opposition to the interests of the people while already showing the problem and the solution. That’s indeed the whole principle of the critics to the Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: (”Hegel started from ideas, hence he concludes ideas!”) he took Hegel’s method and transformed it.

His own daughter wrote about that in an after letter telling what a good and wise man was his father. She said: “I was never more confused in my entire life”.
However, it is good reading Lukacs, Lenin and Adorno for knowing “deeply” what Marx was talking about.

To read is to know the historical structure of a text, not just following lines jumping on whatever easy conclusion comes in handy. One must be transformed by a text or remain a lettered ignorant. The Communist Manifesto is not a pamphlet, its historical importance is underrated but so big that America should not have good salaries or even abolished the (colonialist) slavery, it’s the conclusion of historical Russian, German and British movements in favor of workers and poor people. Also the conclusion of “Das Kapital” and the manuscripts of 1948…

i.e. It is curious that “Deep Thought@” (what an alias) repeatedly argues about “human nature” in Marx. But Marx stated that “Nature” is a myth tied to the Christianized counter-culture of the Middle Age. Marx was against a human “nature” and all the rational consequences of “naturalism” as a Philosophical and Scientific movement (the individual is an alienated concept relating the _actual kind of economical relations of power in societies_) hence the rightist concept of person. Please, don’t put this dark clouds of Christianized bigotry if you want to please your partners with a good chat.

It is also informative knowing that Liberation Theology, the Latin American Catholic movement was powerful and very, very well organized. So organized that then John Paul II started a witch hunting in the Catholic Church to repel their influence (a lot of bishops were holding for a liberal movement in a dying conservative Catholic Church). The counter revolution was in hands of the “dog of God”: the actual Pope…
For short, it is historically known that John Paul II and the C.I.A. worked hand with hand against them handling his threads at the governments of Latin America (the case of the counter-guerrillas formed by the C.I.A.) So, please, stop throwing “supposed facts” everywhere without precision in the use of your sources… Actually this is a fine occasion to say that the Bush government have _killed_ more people than Stalin, also Stalin wasn’t politically/philosophically a communist anyway and _he wasn’t crazy_, most governments around the world kill people to raise power… (See the recent case of Chiquita Brand and the Fruit… Co.) But that’s another story.

However, the main point about religion in Marx and also the main point in db0’s comments is that all religions play a regressive role for all societies, that’s correct. Religion -itself- never played an historical role of education but the contrary: You are mixing Religion with religious people, and “casuistry” doesn’t help for knowing big phenomenas. The Catholic priests that played an important part in the education of America were all revolutionaries and prosecuted people.

Thus It is easy and rightful to generalize on Religion because its historical/ideological groundings are all the same:

* (G)od(s) ~ (authoritarianism)
* bloodlines ~ (alienated -or inverted- human relations with the world)
* land ownership ~ (primitive relationships of power, aka. historical regressionism)
…which are also the bases of the Republican Party and all the conservative parties around the world… (look that this principles work for Buddhism too, no matter if Buddhism isn’t properly a Religion)

This assumptions are backed up in real life nowadays, as db0@ said but “Deep Thought”@ is pretty correct pointing that the terms “moral” and “religious behavior” are very different. No matter what, this is rater misleading because Religion already implies a _kind of morals_. For religious people the objective is to gain the grace -the favor of (G)od(s)- and as the “Bible” stated they must imitate Christ to gain salvation. Jesus, the fictional character of the Bible, and all the “Christian Saints” I know are the worst moral exemplars one would know in life.

Real life is real life, Bush wouldn’t be president for a second mandate without help of the astonishing amounts of Christian bigots in America. I hope it will not be in the near future. Now they know their savior is wrong.

Talking about Bible, Religion and _real knowledge_ are opposites: At least for Torah, Qoran and Bible there is a revelated book posing knowledge beyond all limits.
Why do you need knowing more if you are _really a religious person_?
—-

I don’t have time enough now. Bye.

Deep Thought says:
October 17th, 2007 at 2:54 pm - Edit

NMT,
I needed a good laugh. OK, you post a large series of quotes of Marx about religion that say things like “Religion is the… …the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions” to show his view’s were NOT complex.

OK.

Then you write the lovely (and entertaining!) claim that “The Communist Manifesto is not a pamphlet, its historical importance is underrated but so big that America should not have good salaries or even abolished the (colonialist) slavery…” even though the Abolition movement in English-speaking nations was about 100 years old when the Manifesto was written and had already been abolished for more than a quarter century in England and much of America.

Again - OK.

I concur - Marx rejects the notion of ‘human nature’ in his works - but, since I disagree with him and the results of the implementation of his theories are universally disastrous, I think it is easy for me to say evidence is on my side.

Liberation Theology was never that large and certainly never well-organized. And if by “witch-hunt” you mean ‘two theologians told that they need to stop what they are doing or stop calling themselves Catholic’ then it was a witch hunt. Otherwise - no.

And I dearly love your calim that the Dominicans, Jesuits, and Augustinians (the three largest orders of Monks in the Catholic Church) were ‘revolutionaries’ when they used Vatican monies to build universities.

Db0 says:
October 17th, 2007 at 3:58 pm - Edit

Further, we are wandering a bit far afield of the original statement which is this: Db0 was too broad in his claims leading to statements that are at best nonsensical.

This statements leads me to believe that you missed the point of the article. The idea of the bullets I gave was not to characterize all Christians, but to show examples of how Christian morality might be skewed.

The point I was making with the sheer massive numbers of actual Christians that disagree with you is that there are many people actually within the group you are critiquing demonstrating hat you are wrong.

That is not the point. You don’t seem to realize that I do not try to characterize all Christians but rather to show how basing your morality on Christianity can create problems for humanity.

Can you explain to me why those “many people within the group I am critiquing” keep doing immoral things (based on christianity that is) even though it means they will go to eternal torment if they do? I gave an explanation, what is yours?

”I don’t care what any Christian or secular scholar says, thinks, or does - I know what the Bible *really* says!”

Fine, since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the Bible, please explain just one example of the many objectionable ones

“Slaves, you should obey your masters respectfully, not only those who are kind and reasonable but also those who are difficult to please. You see, there is merit if, in awareness of God, you put up with the pains of undeserved punishment; but what glory is there in putting up with a beating after you have done something wrong? The merit in the sight of God is in putting up with it patiently when you are punished for doing your duty.”
[1 Peter 2]

How is that for quoting what the Bible says?

Deep Thought says:
October 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm - Edit

“The idea of the bullets I gave was not to characterize all Christians, but to show examples of how Christian morality might be skewed.”

Then I suggest you take a writing course! The phrase “For a Christian… …instigating wars, dealing in weapons etc is not a bad deed.” does not convey what you just claimed it was meant to. nor do phrases like, “The majority of the christians never develop mature moral senses”. Indeed, if I were more suspicious, I would suspect that you realize how stupid your initial comments sound and are trying to back down.

But you seem well-intentioned, so I assume that is not the case.

“Can you explain to me why those “many people within the group I am critiquing” keep doing immoral things ”

I explained this further up - Christianity knows that people are imperfect and will fail to be moral at least some of the time. Everyone. Some more than others. Being a Christian is, in the realm of the day-to-day, the admission that you will screw up and that you can’t stop trying to do better.

You think 1 Peter 2 is *tough*? Really?! You don’t understand the message of ‘being enslaved by a jerk is no excuse for being a jerk’? Morality and just actions don’t change just because you are forced to serve an unjust, immoral person?

Db0 says:
October 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm - Edit

But you seem well-intentioned, so I assume that is not the case.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m still an amateur. Also english is not my first language so occasionaly idioms and such from my native language crop up. This is why I try to explain it again.

Christianity knows that people are imperfect and will fail to be moral at least some of the time. Everyone.

I do not know about “everyone” but when I truly believe that something is immoral or whatnot, I just don’t do it. If I do it, then I don’t consider it to be immoral.

You don’t understand the message of ‘being enslaved by a jerk is no excuse for being a jerk’?

Yes, well you see from a religion that wants to be my moral compass I would expect more akin to “Don’t allow yourself to be a slave”, not…this.
This is a perfect example of why Christianity is flawed.

NMT says:
October 18th, 2007 at 8:18 am - Edit

“Dep Thought”@ Firstly, I’ve studied almost 4 years to be a Jesuit so don’t come speaking about Catholic Orders as if you knew something that I don’t. Secondly Dominicans pertain to the most regressive theologists in History just like the ridiculously self-righteous neoplatonists (Agustinians) whose internal practices nowadays are equally dirty or worse than those of the Benedictines. The orders you have introduced were also key pieces for the “Sacred Inquisition” so I don’t know what do you mean for “teaching - spreading knowledge”. In the other hand, Vatican pushed to turn down the Jesuit “missions” in America and the only reason for the success of the Liberal Jesuits is the special dispense of the order. (I mean the missions in favor of native American people). A catholic order which places its very existence upon faith is a poor candidate for a “spreader of knowledge”. They also fought Darwinism, lied and killed covering for centuries the roundness of the earth and that “nature” what you talk about i.e. G. Bruno and other _*”revolutionaries”*_.

The Catholic church submerged humanity in a mental recess over 1500 years !! They started to _respect_ foreign languages few years ago and there is conceit in the Vatican for a regression the old Latin prayers, so I don’t know why you draw them as the liberal people they will never be. You could believe what you want, though standing in reality. Educated priests know that so what you are?

I just want to know what’s your point because you just applied the “Straw Man fallacy” to my comments, and it is one of the most hateful things that intellectual honesty dismisses.
1. I used the quotations of Marx as a practical/simple example for contrasting what I said, an it is just obvious because I was trying to explain in simple words “how it works” not “what you could read everywhere”.
2. I’ve said the manifesto is a *product of historical movements* so I don’t get your point. Also, it looks like you understand slavery textually when I meant a wider perspective which, I think, is seemingly related to _free “intellectual” and “physical” development of human beings as a whole_ in what I have proposed earlier.
3. Saying pedantry you “differ” with Marx (now you make me laugh) is not an excuse for understand him wrongly. If I disagree with the religious behavior that doesn’t excuse me for saying that religion came from Saturn. Also if you are talking about theoretical affairs you should point what do you mean for “implementation” given that the Russian Socialism wasn’t Marxist. Lenin was poisoned because of his criticism to the ruler and also for his callings to practice the dictatorship of the proletarian, given that U.R.S.S. was a parliamentarian bourgeois state. China was never Communist strictly speaking and I think it is very naive from you to be repeating the anti-communist propaganda.

Whatever, if I were playing the same I should have started saying that God and heavenly things are impossible _in theory and practice_.

Theologically and strictly speaking God is a thing without attributes so It can’t be known if not just by a name. What makes powerful religion is a tradition (public speeches, a few common beliefs if there is a common belief at all, and a book wrote mainly at the III and IV century before some historically-non-existent-Zombie-Jew -as for its Christian part).

BTW, who wrote Peter’s letters? Peter? And died he in Rome too?

Deep Thought says:
November 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm - Edit

NMT,
Have you read my blog? I am a Catholic theologian *already* and part of what I do is train seminarians. So, yeah - I probably know more about religious orders than you do. And as a teacher I have to say - any fourth-year seminarian that called members of my profession ‘theologists’ would earn a serious question of ‘have you been paying attention?’.

And you should know by now that the early Jesuit missions that attempted to prevent the spread of colonial powers were suppressed not by the Vatican but by the the Praepositus Generalis of the day.

And any Jesuit who wants to study at Gregorian and doesn’t realize that it and its associated universities, the Pontifical Biblical Institute and Pontifical Oriental Institute were part of the great wave of university building conducted throughout the Church in the 14th through 16th Centuries is going to fail ecclesial history! Add in the tremendous advances in science made by rather-famous Jesuits and other monks and priests in the 1,500 years that the Catholic Church "…submerged humanity in a mental recess…" or that the Church *ever* taught that the Earth was flat and *killed* over it has been sleeping in class. And since Jesuit priest have been required to speak multiple languages for 450 years and theologians have been required to speak 2 and read/write at least 5 for loner, your throw-away comment that the Church only began to respect foreign languages a few years ago is nonsense. Toss in the fact that Latin *IS* still used as the Lingua Franca of the Church because its members speak so darn many different languages AND that Jesuits novitiates are *required* to demonstrate fluency in Latin to become priests and I must conclude, NMT, that you are a liar. There is NO WAY a 4th year Jesuit novitiate could think the things you believe are true and not have been booted out as unteachable. There is NO WAY a Jesuit novitiate who must follow the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius could write something like,

"A catholic order which places its very existence upon faith is a poor candidate for a “spreader of knowledge”"

Since the Jesuit Order bases its existence upon the first principle of St. Ignatius, that "Our only desire and our one choice should be this: I want and I choose what better leads to the deepening of God’s life in me" no Jesuit would conclude that a religious order based on faith makes for a poor spreader of knowledge… since Jesuits base their *cough* RELIGIOUS order on faith and are demonstrable spreaders of knowledge.

NMT, I was not attacking a straw man - you made errors of fact, such as claiming that the Communist Manifesto was responsible for a political movement that began before Marx was BORN.

Last but not least, no Jesuit, whether still just a novitiate or not, could write ‘God is a thing without attributes’ and not know that a Catholic Theologian could tear him to pieces.

NMT, don’t bother to try to justify yourself - one or two of these things might be an earnest young man who hasn’t finished training. All of them together tells me that you are claiming to be something you aren’t

NMT says:
November 9th, 2007 at 10:23 am - Edit

1.) Nope. I finished studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology some time ago abandoning completely what I name "mental masturbation". Of course I was with the Renewed Franciscans a few time after realizing that my vocation was Jesuit… Whatever, this isn’t about "my professional titles" but my personal effort and time studying beyond the stretched space of Universities and religious jails what I am stating here.

Yes! I am a teacher, but I really share with Paul Feyerabend certain aversion for "academical" merits as "brilliant" students in academic places are usually the most moronic ones. And the real knowledge is in the practice and sacrifices of our daily work.

I don’t need ~~spiritual~~ mental assessment or a spiritual guide every time that something doesn’t fit into the map as I don’t tried to impose stupidities to my students but bringing them tools for thinking by themselves.

2.) I am not talking about translators and spreaders of "faith". I am talking about real-Catholic-religious-practices: Vatican II. By the way, we had

The Antichristian Phenomenon

Behold, Bastard son! We are the evil ones.

Heaven against Humanity

How the idea of Heaven creates problem for Humanity