US Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'll take this to PM, but in terms of actual truth, your post didn't contain much. Obviously, the great reach, and capacity of modern engineering and commerce has given us standards of living that couldn't even have been dreamed of by anyone living before the last 100 years.

But to tie sophistication (worldly wisdom) to the consumerist, globalized world that we live in, and that mainly benefits the top 1-2%, is pretty ignorant.

What's the point of taking it to .pm if you don't ever address any points I make directly?

When you claim that we aren't more sophisticated now than civilizations of the past, I explain why I believe we are. When you bring up the nuances of Catholic belief, I explain that not only do I understand the nuances, and how, but why they are irrelevant. On the other hand, when I ask you a direct question about papal infallibility, you avoid the question entirely - twice - and engage in some bafflegab about standards of living.

Debate is not where you make sententious statements and refer other people to books you've read, and then sit back and congratulate yourself on your insight. Nor is it redirecting the discussion whenever you find yourself in a position that has been discredited. Try getting out of the mindset of "I must instruct these plebes in correct thought!" and into one that is more aligned with *convincing* people who don't share your preconceptions and world-view.

[peter12]

Jammies, you never addressed my points regarding the specific humanism of Christianity. That was, and still stands, as a central point in any discussion regarding the very real quarrel between Christianity and secularism. Any of the positive moral progress in modern society comes from the Christian conscience. I admit of course that humans frequently disappoint, and beliefs, and institutions may decay, and become corrupted. You will never find me arguing that the state of Christianity today is perfect.

To address your question regarding papal infallibility. It is not a personal trait, but one integral to the office. Papal infallibility has to do with statements of doctrine central to the Catholic faith. That said, no encyclicals have been deemed infallible since 1870. There is a long-standing tradition of complex debate within the Catholic Church.

That said, I am a Protestant, but a rather Catholic Protestant. I could probably be more of an Anglican. I appreciate the sacraments, but I admire greatly the bare-bones existential philosophizing of Protestant philosophers (see Kierkegaard).

I think you have this very simplistic and liberal understanding of what sophistication is. Consumerism, cheap flights, lots of south-east asian food, the internet, and overall good stnadards of living are hall marks of modernity. All good things I may add. We cannot debate the benefits of modern science and technology because they simply are so good.

That said, it is an extraordinary exaggeration to claim that we have some sort of universal enlightenment due to the widespread popularization of knowledge on the Internet. Christians introduced universal education because they felt that it was essential to the education of morally-responsible selves that could provide themselves with the discipline to serve both family and community. This, I would argue, is not the purpose of education today. You like to fall back onto historicist arguments. We have progressed in a material sense, but I don't think you can adequately prove that we have progressed in a moral sense. Things are always getting better and worse.

Yet, you tend to breeze past the endemic violence of the modern secular state, the inequality, and the general atomization of the individual away from any semblance of community, faith or family that is endorsed by Christianity. In a sense, these relationships form a kind of a freedom that were introduced in a very revolutionary way by Christianity - see my points regarding the equality of women in ancient Rome, the abolition of slavery, and the constant challenges of the state's abuse of authority by humanistic Church leaders. So to answer one of your questions, obviously, yes. I do believe that it is the responsibility of Christians to stand against the abuse of secular authority, but I just don't believe that Kim Davis was doing so in a manner that I particularly endorse.

Debates about same-sex marriage are obviously twisted, and polarized by the media, and by opponents on both sides of the debate. Kim Davis is obviously a pawn in some kind of public relations game, however, that doesn't excuse you from smearing the perspective of an entire institution such as the Catholic Church whose views on marriage are grounded in much theology and philosophy that has less to do with dogma, and more to do with the dignity of the child being raised by a mother and a father.

I don't think that disqualifies Christians from understanding homosexuals' desires to have their relationships publicly respected, and recognized. Nor should it detract from the admiration we should feel for gay couples for generously providing a home for a child who would otherwise have no home. There is just a reasonable priority placed on a relationships who is able to naturally conceive and raise children in a stable environment.

[Street Pharmacist]

All the positive moral progress comes from Christianity???? What ethnocentric crap. Yikes

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by peter12

Jammies, you never addressed my points regarding the specific humanism {snip}

I don't think you understood what jammies was saying at all, if that is what you took from his posts.

I'm not sure you actually attempted to understand what he wrote for the purposes of debating or if you were just looking for another excuse to pontificate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I don't think you understood what jammies was saying at all, if that is what you took from his posts.

I'm not sure you actually attempted to understand what he wrote for the purposes of debating or if you were just looking for another excuse to pontificate.

Well, perhaps you can explain it to me, it is possible that I missed the point.

[Looch City]

Why is Christianity the main reason though? The oldest known religion is Hinduism and I'd argue that had more impact on moral progress.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your posts, but it comes across as "Christianity is the best because I say so and don't recognize other religions". Am I wrong?

This history article is very interesting:

Religion in the Ancient World

The religion of Christianity made standard a belief in an afterlife and set up an organized set of rituals by which an adherent could gain everlasting life. In so doing, the early Christians were simply following in the footsteps of the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians and the Greeks all of whom had their own stylized rituals for the worship of their gods. After the Christians, the Muslim interpreters of the Koran instituted their own rituals for understanding the supreme deity which, though vastly different in form from those of Christianity, Judaism or any of the older 'pagan’ religions, served the same purpose as the rituals once practiced in worship of the Egyptian goddess Hathor (c.3000 BCE) over five thousand years ago: to lend human beings the understanding that they are not alone in their struggles, suffering and triumphs, that they can restrain their baser urges and that death is not the end of existence.

http://www.ancient.eu/religion/


I'm not arguing the fact that religion had a positive moral effect (that I believe to an extent, atleast in the past times), I just don't understand why you think it was only Christianity that contributed to it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Why is Christianity the main reason though? The oldest known religion is Hinduism and I'd argue that had more impact on moral progress.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your posts, but it comes across as "Christianity is the best because I say so and don't recognize other religions". Am I wrong?

This history article is very interesting:

Religion in the Ancient World



http://www.ancient.eu/religion/


I'm not arguing the fact that religion had a positive moral effect (that I believe to an extent, atleast in the past times), I just don't understand why you think it was only Christianity that contributed to it.

I am open to the truth in Hinduism and Buddhism. Heidegger talked a lot about Being and Buddhism, and it was really fascinating.

My view is that institutions that respect the individual, protect her obligations, and treat her equally before the law extend directly from Christianity. This is particularly evident if you look at the pagan milieu from which Christianity sprung.

I can expect disagreement. Nietzsche, one of the greatest of the atheists, could fully express disagreement with Christianity while fully recognizing its greatness.

[Coach]

All religions are born out of us as a means to pass on moral guidelines. That means those morals come from our own innate feelings of right vs wrong. Otherwise these things would have never been created. You can't attribute moralism to any one religion when we made them.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

All religions are born out of us as a means to pass on moral guidelines. That means those morals come from our own innate feelings of right vs wrong. Otherwise these things would have never been created. You can't attribute moralism to any one religion when we made them.

That is just lazy thinking. To say that different beliefs, theologies and philosophies that sprung out of different minds, cultures, and contexts are all essentially the same is as ignorant as me saying science is just a form of Western cultural imperialism. It betrays a complete lack of effort to discover the fundamentals.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Why is Christianity the main reason though? The oldest known religion is Hinduism and I'd argue that had more impact on moral progress.

Maybe I'm reading too much into your posts, but it comes across as "Christianity is the best because I say so and don't recognize other religions". Am I wrong?

Not to mention he's ignoring all of the basic biological and evolutionary reasons for morality (i.e. reciprocal altruism, group selection, etc.), and the use of reason.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not to mention he's ignoring all of the basic biological and evolutionary reasons for morality (i.e. reciprocal altruism, group selection, etc.), and the use of reason.

This would actually be the precise confluence that Christianity founded.

If you hold these positions dogmatically, then you make the assumption that all societies are fundamentally alike, even though they obviously aren't.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

This would actually be the precise confluence that Christianity founded.

If you hold these positions dogmatically, then you make the assumption that all societies are fundamentally alike, even though they obviously aren't.

That's an awfully big and incorrect leap to make. You can hold that these factors are generally true across the board, while recognizing that they would manifest themselves in different ways in different cultures. Your position can't explain why cultures where Christianity held no influence, or those that predate Christianity shared or influenced Christian values, unless you're going to make some appeal to divine moral facts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's an awfully big and incorrect leap to make. You can hold that these factors are generally true across the board, while recognizing that they would manifest themselves in different ways in different cultures. Your position can't explain why cultures where Christianity held no influence, or those that predate Christianity shared or influenced Christian values, unless you're going to make some appeal to divine moral facts.

Yet, to say that Christianity doesn't acknowledge real facts about our nature, and use reason to decipher moral precepts that correspond to those facts is equally ignorant.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yet, to say that Christianity doesn't acknowledge real facts about our nature, and use reason to decipher moral precepts that correspond to those facts is equally ignorant.

Nice strawman, but where did I make that argument?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nice strawman, but where did I make that argument?

By reducing all difference down to subjectivity, you erase the need to actually critically determine what makes certain moral beliefs superior, or more humanistic than others. Obviously, science can't do it.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is just lazy thinking. To say that different beliefs, theologies and philosophies that sprung out of different minds, cultures, and contexts are all essentially the same is as ignorant as me saying science is just a form of Western cultural imperialism. It betrays a complete lack of effort to discover the fundamentals.

I never said they were essentially the same. I'm saying they all come from us, so whatever their positives or negatives are are born out of us. To attribute all positive morality to one single religion, when you have all the different beliefs, theologies, etc.. as you mentioned, all being used as guides for morality, is just flat out incorrect. You don't think some stuff from the religions that existed before leaked into Christianity and had positive impacts? That's absolutely ludicrous.

In order for Christianity, which is born out of human thought, to have a positive impact on humanity, those morals had to exist prior.

Not to mention, all you have been discussing are the theories behind the Christian faith and pushing aside the actual practices being referenced by others. So you believe positive morality is born out of Christianity, fine I guess, it doesn't discount the multiple atrocities in human history committed in the name of god. These have been committed by pretty much every possible theology, and while it doesn't necessarily discount the things they are TRYING to teach, it does bring into doubt the actual positive impact the church (and religion overall) has had on humanity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

By reducing all difference down to subjectivity, you erase the need to actually critically determine what makes certain moral beliefs superior, or more humanistic than others.

Again, not something I claimed. I wrote a paper last year on why human sacrifice was practiced in some cultures and not others, and what conditions could predict the practice. I would never make the claim that the practice wasn't barbaric or immoral just because certain conditions were more likely to give rise to it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I never said they were essentially the same. I'm saying they all come from us, so whatever their positives or negatives are are born out of us. To attribute all positive morality to one single religion, when you have all the different beliefs, theologies, etc.. as you mentioned, all being used as guides for morality. You don't think some stuff from the religions that existed before leaked into Christianity and had positive impacts? That's absolutely ludicrous.

In order for Christianity, which is born out of human thought, to have a positive impact on humanity, those morals had to exist prior.

Well, now are getting bogged down in semantics.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you making an argument from nature? That is, all beliefs etc... are just an expression of a biologically-imprinted morality? Are you eliminating the factor of human reason altogether?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, now are getting bogged down in semantics.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you making an argument from nature? That is, all beliefs etc... are just an expression of a biologically-imprinted morality? Are you eliminating the factor of human reason altogether?

I'm simply arguing against your main point that all positivism comes from Christianity. It's complete bollocks, like it's the only altruistic religion. It's frankly upsetting that someone as well-educated as you seem to be would take such a narrow view of the progression of humanity.

I'm not eliminating human reason, but yes I am saying it is a natural occurrence. Do we consider killing to wrong because god says so? If that was true people who follow god wouldn't kill, and people who don't would, which we know is not true at all. You're trying to attribute all positivity to your interpretation of Christianity, where as the historical practices of it (and most other religions) tells us otherwise.

Reason is born out of questioning, and while so is Christianity, it also largely halted that idea through the inquisition as soon as the questioning began to lead to answers (or more questions) that were outside of Christian teachings. Whether the suppression of these things is actually written in the doctrine or not is completely irrelevant, because it is what happened and still happens.

In regards to the same-sex marriage issue, it's the same thing. We have real evidence, right now, of people using Christian doctrines to restrict the rights of others. Again, whether there is sufficient wording in the actual text to support it is irrelevant, as it has been supported by a large portion (likely the majority, I don't want to say it is as I'm sure there have been large swings in the last few years) of it's followers. The wording of the texts and how you choose to view/follow them doesn't matter when you're trying to claim that Christianity birthed morality. The practice is what matters.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, now are getting bogged down in semantics.

I am not exactly sure what you are saying. Are you making an argument from nature? That is, all beliefs etc... are just an expression of a biologically-imprinted morality? Are you eliminating the factor of human reason altogether?

No, you're the one insisting humanism and human reason are a construct of a book written by a sky fairy. Even if it was (which of absurd), it's biological and societal constructs that were written into a myth. Not the other way around