Niccolò: Nathyn:OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.You should have realized that I'm a ROMAN CATHOLIC and thus don't believe that the Bible contains all revealed truths of God. Though the bible is the word of God, it does not follow that it is the be all and end all of Christianity. Much more goes into the Christian faith than just the bible, though it is a fundamental aspect of our religion. Nathyn:You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly. God exists: Nathyn:The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail. I didn't intend to deceive you with complexities and ingenious tricks.It's commonly agreed upon that Christ purposefully worded the statement "give unto Caesar" in order to both avoid trouble and the politicalization of God. It's also commonly agreed upon that Paul was referring to the Church as the governing authority established by the Lord as a servant for God's work. If God's establishment of states was what Paul meant, then he would have no reason to establish the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Your arguments just don't follow, sorry. They're shallow and ill-informed. I was, at one point, seriously considering a life in the clergy, so I do understand and know an awful lot about Christianity and the tenants of Catechism.
Nathyn:OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.
OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren't even worth addressing. If you're going to begin by appealing to "God's beliefs" apart from what's laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.
Nathyn:You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly.
You aren't God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn't exist, so claiming "God's on my side," is just silly.
God exists:
Nathyn:The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail.
The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail.
I didn't intend to deceive you with complexities and ingenious tricks.
It's commonly agreed upon that Christ purposefully worded the statement "give unto Caesar" in order to both avoid trouble and the politicalization of God.
It's also commonly agreed upon that Paul was referring to the Church as the governing authority established by the Lord as a servant for God's work. If God's establishment of states was what Paul meant, then he would have no reason to establish the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Your arguments just don't follow, sorry. They're shallow and ill-informed. I was, at one point, seriously considering a life in the clergy, so I do understand and know an awful lot about Christianity and the tenants of Catechism.
1. God exists.
2. ??????
3. Profit!
I'm not going to bother addressing such blatant sophistry, for the reasons noted above. I could go on and on about how Catholicism is just as silly as Protestantism. I don't think it would do any good. I mean, your beliefs are interlaced with both political, economic, and religious presuppositions. Debating the point would be like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist. I refuse, because I know the result.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn:1. God exists.2. ??????3. Profit! I'm not going to bother addressing such blatant sophistry, for the reasons noted above. I could go on and on about how Catholicism is just as silly as Protestantism. I don't think it would do any good. I mean, your beliefs are interlaced with both political, economic, and religious presuppositions. Debating the point would be like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist. I refuse, because I know the result.
At least you can express your thoughts coherently.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Nathyn:Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion? It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal.
Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion?
It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal.
Look, ultimately, you base everything you believe in on something, some ultimate presupposition through which all of reality is interpreted. I base mine on the Bible, and Christian theism (or do I repeat myself?...yes, I do). You base your concepts of "freedom" on religion too, rather you acknowledge it or not.
If you don't believe the Bible, how on earth can you say Christians are wrong to make that "horrible assumption"? Obviously, to you its not a make or break deal, because you don't believe the Bible. You cannot accept that the Bible is true, and so make the assertion that accepting the Bible as truth is an odd thing. I believe NOT accepting the Bible as total truth an odd thing as well.
And I don't know one Christian who believes atheists are criminals, or "amoral". You can't be amoral. Relativistic is another matter. I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
Well this is one point that I think is fallacious. It does not logically follow that if I do not follow your particular claim to objective morality, that I am a moral subjectivist or relativist. There is such thing as secular objective morality that does not fall back on any arguement from authority appealing to either deities or governments and politics. Ethical objectivism is not a specifically religious or Christian notion, it is a philosophical framework. But in either case, I have always been bothered by the pervasive assumption made by many religionists that in the absence of their particular religion or diety, hedonism or nihilism or relativism are the only options. It strikes me as an attempt to claim a monopoly on ethics.
Rothbard's own conception of natural rights and natural law, while I openly concede that it is partially influenced from religious sources such as Thomas Aquinas (who, mind you, technically took an "agnostic" or "ignostic" position about the process of discovering natural law in that he proclaimed that the existance or non-existance of a diety is irrelevant to the existance, discovery or practise of the natural law), is secular at its root and dates back to Aristotle. And while there are certainly flaws in her system of ethics, Ayn Rand took a pretty good shot at providing an objective secular morality. I openly concede to being influenced by her, and think that the logical result of applying her own philosophy to politics was anarchism, which unfortunately she did not conclude herself.
That being said, in response to the OP, I don't think that Christian anarchism is "untenable" or impossible. I do think that it involves cognitive dissonance though in the sense that I see internal conflict within holding onto both the notion that we don't need a human authority to rule over us yet we need a cosmic, religious authority to rule over us lest the world would allegedly not make sense and devolve into chaos. Of course, I also see cognitive dissonance in the reverse: rejecting the need for and existance of a diety to rule over us while putting forth that there is a need for human rulers. At least etymologially I do see atheism and anarchism as quite compatible. Of course, I'm not going to proclaim that "you can't be an anarchist and not be an atheist". That would be ridiculous.
I will grant that the deists don't really run into the same cognitive dissonance because their conception of the diety or creator is one that does not play an active role in the universe once it has already been created. I would also tend to argue that polytheism seems more decentralized in nature then monotheism in that, to use an analogy, it's akin to proclaiming that there can be multiple governments while monotheism is akin to proclaiming that there must be a world (or universal) government. I also question wether religious conceptions of morality can truly be "objective" in that they often deny the use of reason as a means to discovering morality. They usually fall back on either revelation or an appeal to authority. Thinkers like Aquinas are a rare acception.
sam72: Nathyn:Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion? It's not a "make or break" deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don't assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal. Look, ultimately, you base everything you believe in on something, some ultimate presupposition through which all of reality is interpreted. I base mine on the Bible, and Christian theism (or do I repeat myself?...yes, I do). You base your concepts of "freedom" on religion too, rather you acknowledge it or not.If you don't believe the Bible, how on earth can you say Christians are wrong to make that "horrible assumption"? Obviously, to you its not a make or break deal, because you don't believe the Bible. You cannot accept that the Bible is true, and so make the assertion that accepting the Bible as truth is an odd thing. I believe NOT accepting the Bible as total truth an odd thing as well. And I don't know one Christian who believes atheists are criminals, or "amoral". You can't be amoral. Relativistic is another matter. I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes.
I admit that my criticism of others is egoistic foolishness. The only important debates in the world go on within the individual human mind -- from my perspective, mine and from your perspective, yours. Criticizing others is always a gamble because we are fallible and, even with good intentions, run the risk of naively supporting the misery and oppression of others out of our own ignorance.
This fact, however, does little to disprove my assertions and I think my own assumptions about things are reasonable.
To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482
Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.
There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well:
http://godisimaginary.com/
Brainpolice:I'd say philosophically, all non-Christian religions or belief-systems are ultimately relativistic, or self-contradictory. Everyone is relativistic sometimes. Well this is one point that I think is fallacious.
Well this is one point that I think is fallacious.
That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make.
reidbump:I refer to other supporting facts, namely that God Himself has a government. From the New Testament we know that God sent Christ, who called Apostles and Seventies to run his Church. God delegates to Christ and Christ delegates to prophets, teachers, priests, etc. In the Old Testament, God always had a prophet or judges. He delegated to these men to run His temporal affairs. Moses, under God's instructions, created a government to govern the Israelites, etc. While God gives all men free will and the right to act voluntarily by making their own decisions between right and wrong, He does not leave us without an organized structure to understand what His will is for us. Thus, I also am of the opinion that Christianity recognizes the necessity of government and that Christian Anarchism is paradoxical.
It's interesting to note that with the exception of Christianity and some schools of Buddhism, every other major world religion were created as a means for the ruling regime to justify its grip on power as an expression of divine will. The divine hierarchy of the Old Testament's angelic pantheon reflects and perpetuates the rigid social hierarchy of the ruling elite of its society. The god of the Old Testament demands taxes (sacrifices) accepts no competition (he murders over two million unbelievers) or critical questioning of the law, and presents a façade of voluntary submission (convert or face annihilation).
The New Testament on the other hand, was written before Christianity transformed to an institution of theocratic dictatorship. It presents a personal rather than collective choice (submit or you will burn in hell, as opposed to your tribe/descendants.) This subtle distinction may be responsible for the success of Western civilization, as secular rulers did not feel personally threatened when reason eroded the power of the church. (Of course, that did not stop the church itself from butchering secularists for as long as it could.) This is still not possible in the Islamic and Confucian world, where the secular and divine authority is united in a single institution. The attempt to introduce Aristotelian philosophy by Ibn-Rushd in particular, was wildly successful in the West, but because rational questioning was a threat to current regime, it was snuffed out by the institutionalization of doctrines such as the taqleed.
Nathyn:To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well:
I don't blame you for not engaging in religious arguments. I use to debate atheists all the time, and believe me, I've heard some pretty silly atheistic arguments before, some of them found in that link you gave me. "proof 36" is ridiculous. I was raised a Christian, but went through a period of about a year and half where I considered myself an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Admittedly, arguments from most mainstream Christians didn't convince me, and affirmed that mainstream Christianity is wacko. But arguments like "if there is a child starving, and God is all loving, and doesn't save him, God must not exist." I didn't buy that crap even when I didn't believe Christianity. Its so easily disprovable from simply reading the Bible that I'm surprised people still use arguments like that. I looked through all that stuff during my "time" as an agnostic. Most of those arguments on that site are easily disprovable. I'm much more concerned with the philosophical problems, like metaphysics, and epistemology, which is where I don't think other philosophies hold up.
Nathyn:That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make.
Hopefully you realize I wasn't making an argument. I was making an assertion, which is to say, stating my opinion.
HeroicLife:It's interesting to note that with the exception of Christianity and some schools of Buddhism, every other major world religion were created as a means for the ruling regime to justify its grip on power as an expression of divine will.
Also, about major world religions: You forgot Taoism.Not trying to nitpick -- just saying. The Tao Te Ching (57) says:
If you want to be a great leader,you must learn to follow the Tao.Stop trying to control.Let go of fixed plans and concepts,and the world will govern itself.The more prohibitions you have,the less virtuous people will be.The more weapons you have,the less secure people will be.The more subsidies you have,the less self-reliant people will be.
Ahimsa had a profound influence on Vedic philosophy, such as on the views of Gandhi.
Warning: my thoughts on this subject will probably be very offensive to most Christians.
I don't think we can necessarily say that they were created for that purpose, just that they were used that way. The earliest of religions, as it seem to me, seem to just be "bad philosophies" (primitive understanding of science, mixed with superstition) if not outright cults.
I've concluded that the earliest religions were based on family-worshop or ancestor-worshop. They would literally ritually slaughter an elder and cannibalistically eat them as a diefication ritual. This is what the communion ritual, as well as the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, is symbolic of. Many of these early cult religions also had very similar traits to the Jesus story, with virgin birth in cave and dieing for your salvation and ressurection and everything, so the Christian religion is hardly unique in its archetypes. See the book "Pagan Christs" for a more detailed analysis of this.
I also see religion as historically being tied to politics due to the familial connection. The earliest rulers were either worshopped as literal gods or were thought of as the ancestors of gods. Early monarchs tried to justify their rule by bloodlines that they claimed to be divine. The official union of church and state as a means of justifying political rule did not come until later. In either case, I see both religion and politics as stemming from the cult of the family and/or ancestor worshop. I see all dieties as either being made up or being the glorification of some past ancestor, often one who was ritualistically sacrificed.
I admit I don't think Jesus himself was pro-government -- he said what he did because he was afraid of the Romans. The Romans were suspicious that he was anti-Roman (hence the reason the High Priests tried to trick Jesus into cursing Caesar). It's no coincidence, then, that the passage supporting the authority of government is in the book, THE BOOK OF ROMANS. There were zealots in his day that were anti-Roman, Jesus apparently hung out with a lot of them because several of his apostles were zealots. I suspect he may have secretly supported the anti-Roman underground resistance movement based on him telling his followers to "get some swords" in Luke 22, or at least "passive resistance" to government (assuming Jesus ever existed historically -- I don't believe that). In either case, though, based on scripture, he was a hypocrite -- either openly supporting government or only opposing it secretly while telling people to pay their taxes and obey the law.
Whatever Jesus actually thought, or regaurdless of wether or not he ever existed, I cannot help but see the Christian religion, at its root, as an attempt by the Roman State to unify everyone into one political unit. This is particularly true when it comes to Constantine the sun cultist, who used this budding new religion of Christianity, then little more then a decentralized dispersal of cults, or the purposes of practical politics. Heroic is technically correct though that the scriptures were written before any kind of theocracy was implemented. One could argue that this was an exploitation of the scriptures for political purposes.
But in either case, the actual foundation of the official Christian religion (which the scriptures predate by far) is based in Roman politics in my understanding. Before then, the Christian religion was an entirely different thing with a multitude of sects that have long since been usurped. Most of the scriptures were excluded from the bible and the bible is by no means the earliest Christian text. Arguably, the Koptics and Egyptian Church are the closest to genuine early Christianity then any other currently existing sect. Modern Christianity, by and large, has little to no resemblance to what the original followers of Jesus actually believed and practised.
Brainpolice:Well this is one point that I think is fallacious. It does not logically follow that if I do not follow your particular claim to objective morality, that I am a moral subjectivist or relativist. There is such thing as secular objective morality that does not fall back on any arguement from authority appealing to either deities or governments and politics. Ethical objectivism is not a specifically religious or Christian notion, it is a philosophical framework. But in either case, I have always been bothered by the pervasive assumption made by many religionists that in the absence of their particular religion or diety, hedonism or nihilism or relativism are the only options. It strikes me as an attempt to claim a monopoly on ethics.
It is claiming a monopoly on ethics. There is no neutrality when it comes to claims of ultimate reality. Every belief system (acknowledged or not) makes fundemental claims about reality. There is no escaping this. This idea that you can start off from a neutral point of view, and reason your way to truth without realizing the underlying ultimate beliefs about reality is simply not true. And no, you are right that it does not logically follow that if you don't accept my claim to objective morality you are a moral subjectivist or relativist. However, it may follow that if you don't accept my claim to objective reality your claim to objective morality may be self-contradictory or relativist. Thats what I meant. And thats obviously where philosophy and debate comes into play.
Brainpolice: I also question wether religious conceptions of morality can truly be "objective" in that they often deny the use of reason as a means to discovering morality. They usually fall back on either revelation or an appeal to authority. Thinkers like Aquinas are a rare acception.
This brings us back to the fact that no matter what, every belief system has a starting point upon which all other facts and experience is interpreted. Neutrality and objectivity, in the sense you are using them, are impossible, I think. Who says that "reason" is to be the final authority on matters of reality? As I see it, the Bible and God are my final authorities, through which all facts and experience are to be interpreted. Reason, of course, is a tool used to gain truth, but ultimately the Bible is the final authority. Undoubtedly, this will sound very unreasonable too you. It would have sounded the same to me a few years ago. But, honestly, is what you are doing any different? Rather you accept it or not, you follow some ultimate standard as much as any Christian. Everyone does. Too you, reason is the final authority. God must be validated by reason (which would make God no final authority at all). I say, reason is a tool, but that final authority is in God. If reason had to be validated by some other source, then it would not be the final authority. My belief is that reason should not be the final authority. Reason, is your God.
sam72: Nathyn:To demonstrate, though, why I rarely address "religious" arguments, especially if I think the person isn't going to be making honest arguments, check out this thread on another forum:http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=96482Look at the absurd rebuttals made: Grammar doesn't matter, truth isn't determined by reality, etc.. It's sheer nonsense.There is God. The proof: Look around you. This lays the argument out pretty well: I don't blame you for not engaging in religious arguments. I use to debate atheists all the time, and believe me, I've heard some pretty silly atheistic arguments before, some of them found in that link you gave me. "proof 36" is ridiculous. I was raised a Christian, but went through a period of about a year and half where I considered myself an agnostic, maybe an atheist. Admittedly, arguments from most mainstream Christians didn't convince me, and affirmed that mainstream Christianity is wacko. But arguments like "if there is a child starving, and God is all loving, and doesn't save him, God must not exist." I didn't buy that crap even when I didn't believe Christianity. Its so easily disprovable from simply reading the Bible that I'm surprised people still use arguments like that. I looked through all that stuff during my "time" as an agnostic. Most of those arguments on that site are easily disprovable. I'm much more concerned with the philosophical problems, like metaphysics, and epistemology, which is where I don't think other philosophies hold up. Nathyn:That's the only way they can defend their beliefs. Again, see the thread in the Christian forum I linked above, where you'll see me arguing against some Christians and the absolutely absurd arguments they make. Hopefully you realize I wasn't making an argument. I was making an assertion, which is to say, stating my opinion.
Sam, are you a fan of Soren Kierkegaard?I find his analysis to be specifically interesting and I like his idea of the knight of faith capable of transcending the knight of infinite resignation.
P.S. I'm still working on the tax stuff. I have a large paper due today, so I can get back on that with you after it's done.