This is exactly the problem. No matter how many times I explain the errors of this sort of thinking your only response is a restatement of your presumptions.

People stereotype, boagie.

Again, we can claim the other doesn't understand all day long and never get anywhere.

To answer the question - no, never did. I did not bring up mental illness, you did. I didn't bring up organization, either, you did. Remember? You asked:

And I responded: "No. I do not hold people responsible for things they do not do."

War? No, that's against my religion.

As for 'games', I can only imagine you mean some sort of discourse regarding our disagreements on religion. While this sounds magnificent, I must admit I am surprised - you are generally too timid to do more than state your already manufactured views. But, hey, I'm all for a real discussion.

Right. That's my question. We know why Christians would call them wrong (and hence why they could be charged with being hypocritical), but on what basis does the OPer do so?

So to my question to Mephistopholes as to what basis he was judging certain things to be wrong, and Christians for both affirming them (by acknowledging the truth of Scripture) and condemning them, we are given this response:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...l-purpose.html
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum...not-wrong.html

So we check out these two links and find that one of them says, "Life will still be life, and then you'll die, and nothing will matter. Nothing matters. Not even our own lives. Why would we matter if we simply and utterly die? The mind is such a fragile thing, and when it ends, it can never come back."

I guess I'm wondering how nihilistic statements like this answer the question of what basis Mephistopholes is using to criticize Christianity. How does nihilism provide the foundation for the criticism of any belief, let alone Christianity? If nothing matters, then how can you have any moral basis for saying that something else is immoral, or wrong? What precisely is wrong, from a nihilistic perspective, with affirming moral beliefs and believing a document in which they are committed, apparently with approval?

Then we check out the 2nd link, where we find statements like this one, "There is no universal physical law saying murder is wrong. There are laws basically etched into stone declaring murder illegal, but what makes murder wrong? By virtue of being "illegal"? That's not a rational answer. What makes murder intrinsically, fundamentally wrong?"

Okay. So if you can't say murder is wrong, then on what basis are you saying hypocrisy is wrong?

Looks to me like you're hung by your own rope.

Well, I don't think the original post was implying he does. It was simply suggesting the hypocrisy of Christianity, regardless of what philosophy he uses in his own morality.

Martin, I don't think he's hung by his own rope; he's simply considering. His feeling toward hypocrisy or murder as being intrinsically wrong is irrelevant. It's not wrong to consider, even if the one considering may appear hypocritical based on their set of morals, in my opinion. Hell, I consider things all the time and sometimes don't have a 'good' or reasonable basis - I consider just to consider.

"War? No, that's against my religion."

Thomas,

I think most people get the joke! Do me a favour, limit your dialogue with me to one area/thread. I am less than charmed by your approach but perhaps we can get it out of the way, as in done.




When you find yourself falling, dive!! Joseph Campbell

Ah, boagie and Didy,

The whole premise of this philosophy forum is to discuss, share ideas, spread information. Don't limit yourselves by letting your emotion overshadow what could very well be a good discussion! You both articulate your points well, and although you have differing viewpoints, don't hold it against each other! Learn from each other and advance.

...for God's sake (yes, I said God )

Boagie, where ever I see you, or anyone else, making indefensible comments about religion, especially when those comments retard intelligent discussion, I will respond. Nothing personal, I just prefer to correct misguided statements that promote intolerance.

You are free to discourse as you please.

Thomas,

I would guess we are still in trouble, if your so sensitive about intolerance you might clean house first. Your kind of evasive in getting the individual and the church off the hook. My concern is what Christianity does on the political front. I mean, who would give a dam if an individual wished to believe in a purple tooth fairy, certainly not I, but, would I like see him in a position of power, this causes unbelievers some stress.




When you find yourself falling, dive!! Joseph Campbell

Yeah, I would prefer tolerance to intolerance. I don't see a problem there.

Individuals should be held responsible for their actions, and not the actions of others. Similarly with some particular organization.

So, we could blame Hitler and various other Nazi officials for the Holocaust, but not every German alive in 1940. To take an example from religion,we can also blame that political animal the Catholic Church for countless ills, like the Crusades, but not every Catholic as not every Catholic is responsible for the Crusades.

Individuals and organizations should be held accountable, if they are responsible.

I am also concerned about the mixture of politics and religion - especially when we have religious nut jobs involved in politics, like our current President Bush.

Luckily, not every spiritual individual holds beliefs comparable to belief in a purple tooth fairy. There are cases where religious doctrine has positively influenced politics - The Indian emperor Ashoka implemented a number of environmental protections in accordance with his Buddhist ideals. Unfortunately, most mixtures of religion and politics do not turn out so well. That's why I'm a big Jefferson fan - I'd like a wall of separation between my church and state, please.

How do some of the posters rationalize these things:
shameless ignorance
Holding beliefes in light of their inherent fallacies

To say christians allow for such evils is so fallacious that I am not sure where to start, and I see thomas d to be a drowning voice of reason in this.

To say that any group so broad as christians can be held accountable is fallacious due to that fact that it presumes a nonexistent homogeny. To misunderstand ancient laws as given truth is fallacious and most christians do not advocate such a belief, only an outspoken and ingorant minority.

To accuse christianity itself of any evils is absurd, it is those who wish to further themselfs who use christianity as a tool for their own ends who are to be held accountable, not those who find value in a set of ideals contained in an ancient text.
I do not attack communists and other collectivists for supression of peoples or the millions of death caused by bastardisations of their movement. I do not do this because I recognize the good intent inherent in the movement and those who have in the past believed in it. I do not attack those who belong to a group that is guilty of evils for if I did so I would not only be a hypocrite but a mysanthrope.

I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.