Growing up in an irreligious household.

[st_swithin]

Bhudda vs. Ghandi - I'd pay money to see that fight.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
No resurrection, no basis for Christianity.

I would have to disagree. No resurrection, no basis for YOUR brand of Christianity.

See, lots of people think that a good deal of what Jesus said (or Paul said, whatever) is a smashingly good philosophy to live by. The basics of "Love one another," the golden rule, etc. are very powerful ethical statements, ones that really haven't been improved upon. So if one sees the moral teachings of Christianity as the best around and so is Christian because of that, I don't see why the reality of a resurrection is necessary. You may not consider such folks "Christian," but that's not really your judgment to make.

Oh, and many ancient religions featured gods who died and were resurrected, including Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Dionysus, Mithra, etc. Osiris, in fact, was killed, resurrected and then ascended to the Egyptian "heaven" to judge the dead and send them to the appropriate place in the afterlife.

[MikeH]

I agree with that, the concepts of forgiveness, and tolerance are great even though I'm not a Christian. Which, unfortunately, also makes it even worse the way some fanatics use christianity as an excuse for intolerance and predjudice.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by st_swithin
Bhudda vs. Ghandi - I'd pay money to see that fight.

I'll take the Bhudda and his weight advantage, though he doesn't care about the outcome.

[Ben Kenobi]

You may not consider such folks "Christian," but that's not really your judgment to make.

No, you are right, it's not my judgment. I'm just going by what I know. God gets to make the decision in the end.

I don't see why the reality of a resurrection is necessary.

It confirms Christ as the Son of God, and affirms some of his promises to his disciples. Otherwise, you are following a man who has wonderful ideas, no different from other moral teachers.

Secondly, without the resurrection, you would have proof for Christ as a liar. Would you trust someone who says lying is wrong, and then later lies to his disciples?

Finally, on what basis do you insist: "the moral teachings of Christianity as the best around?"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
It confirms Christ as the Son of God, and affirms some of his promises to his disciples. Otherwise, you are following a man who has wonderful ideas, no different from other moral teachers.

Which is a problem how? That's why I mentioned Jefferson, as he was just such a person--someone who felt Jesus had wonderful ideas and was a great moral teacher. However, that doesn't mean he was "no different" from other moral teachers. All moral teachings aren't the same, and I don't think divinity is necessary to infer that a moral principal is more just than another.

Secondly, without the resurrection, you would have proof for Christ as a liar. Would you trust someone who says lying is wrong, and then later lies to his disciples?

I assume you mean because Jesus purportedly said he would be resurrected. But what if that is the lie? What if overeager Christians in the first few centuries CE put words in Jesus's mouth to make the claims of divinity, but in truth he said no such things? If it's possible the resurrection is false, then it's also possible his claims that he would be resurrected are false.

Regardless, were he a liar about this, would that mean his moral teachings are automatically invalid? Not a bit, in my opinion. It's kind of like the old (false) story that Darwin recanted Evolution on his deathbed. Even if he had, it would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of evolution, since once he had espoused the theory, it belonged to the world and was not his to retract. The same would go for Jesus. Once he gave the world his moral teachings, even moral failings on his part can't invalidate their rightness.

Finally, on what basis do you insist: "the moral teachings of Christianity as the best around?"

When did I insist on any such thing? Read again.

[st_swithin]

Shouldn't "the moral teachings of Christianity" be in the Oxymorons thread?

[Straybow]

Golden Rule is not Christianity

Originally posted by Boris Godunov See, lots of people think that a good deal of what Jesus said (or Paul said, whatever) is a smashingly good philosophy to live by. The basics of "Love one another," the golden rule, etc. are very powerful ethical statements, ones that really haven't been improved upon.

That isn't Christianity, that is merely Johannine or Petrine or Pauline philosophy. Philosophy and religion are related but non-interchangible species; we don't have religions of "Nietzchianity" or "Humaeism."

Originally posted by st_swithin
Shouldn't "the moral teachings of Christianity" be in the Oxymorons thread?

Alongside "intelligent comments by st_swithin, perhaps?"

[Ben Kenobi]

What if overeager Christians in the first few centuries CE put words in Jesus's mouth to make the claims of divinity, but in truth he said no such things?

Why did the Pharisees demand that he be stoned? For being a great moral teacher? The Jews have had many others. Why single out Jesus for such abuse? It does not make sense for them to stone Jesus unless he claims that he is the Son of God, blasphemy for any Jew.

I don't think divinity is necessary to infer that a moral principal is more just than another.

Well, than how do you infer the superiority of one moral principle over another? This is the same question you artfully dodged earlier.

Once he gave the world his moral teachings, even moral failings on his part can't invalidate their rightness.

Very clever!

What are some of the presuppositions for this position? First of all this assumes objective morality, in the existence of a moral code applicable to everyone. Secondly, this presupposes, that Jesus' teachings conform to some kind of standard that we all know.

Now I ask, how do you know of such a standard? How can you measure a moral statement according to this standard?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Why did the Pharisees demand that he be stoned? For being a great moral teacher? The Jews have had many others. Why single out Jesus for such abuse? It does not make sense for them to stone Jesus unless he claims that he is the Son of God, blasphemy for any Jew.

How do you know the Pharisees would only stone someone for professing to be the Son of God? That's pure conjecture on your part, as far as I can see. He was (supposedly) preaching that the Pharisees were hypocrites and people should essentially reject their moral authority. That would be enough to earn their ire and make them want to stone him.

And again, that's assuming it's even true that the Pharisees wanted to stone him!

Well, than how do you infer the superiority of one moral principle over another? This is the same question you artfully dodged earlier.

How did I "artfully dodge" anything? The "inference of superiority" is up to the individual and what they feel is right. Do you know anyone who actually believes every moral tenet is equally valid for their life? I certainly don't...

Very clever!

What are some of the presuppositions for this position? First of all this assumes objective morality, in the existence of a moral code applicable to everyone.

No it doesn't--it simply means that once a moral philosophy has been espoused, individuals are free to make the choice of it being good morality regardless of the ends to which the original philosopher has come. Were Socrates to have gone senile and begun acting in an irrational, hypocritical way, it would in no way render the Socratic method somehow invalid as a philosophical approach. That doesn't require any "objective" point of view.

Secondly, this presupposes, that Jesus' teachings conform to some kind of standard that we all know.

Now I ask, how do you know of such a standard? How can you measure a moral statement according to this standard?

Again, you're making an argument out of something that isn't there. I made no claims to there being a universal standard, that's what you're infering. I'll have to go to an evolution analogy again. Creatures inhabit a niche because they are the best-adapted ones for that particular niche. There is no universal sense of what is best-adapted--each environment is particular.

The same would hold true for morality--a moral philosophy inhabits its niche in the world because it is "best-adapted" for said niche, i.e. its moral tenets are most applicable to the current society and environment. In that sense, one could say that there is an objectively best-suited moral philosophy for a particular environment, but that by no means makes that philosophy universally sound, only locally.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Golden Rule is not Christianity

Originally posted by Straybow
[q] Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Originally posted by st_swithin
Shouldn't "the moral teachings of Christianity" be in the Oxymorons thread?

Alongside "intelligent comments by st_swithin, perhaps?"

Except that Jesus did talk about religion a lot, and it is clear that he (or whomever was speaking) was making their philosophical statements within the context of religious beliefs. There was his preaching against the laws of Leviticus.

Even if one takes out any claims as to Jesus's divinity, it's abudantly clear that religion is one of his primary focal points.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's pure conjecture on your part, as far as I can see.

Conjecture? I gave the reason as blasphemy... That's hardly conjecture.

And again, that's assuming it's even true that the Pharisees wanted to stone him!

Then why not throw the whole book out including the moral teachings?

Do you know anyone who actually believes every moral tenet is equally valid for their life?

No. Most Moral relativists admit certain principles take precedence over others when pressed. I'm asking how you decide what should be right or wrong.

That doesn't require any "objective" point of view.

Well, what are some of the presuppositions of Socrates? One of them is an objective morality. In order to use his method, you have to assume a common morality.

The same would hold true for morality--a moral philosophy inhabits its niche in the world because it is "best-adapted" for said niche, i.e. its moral tenets are most applicable to the current society and environment.

Cultural Relativism eh?

Let's extend your metaphor. The environment constantly changes. Does this mean morality must always change to suit the environment?

Secondly, this assumes that 'morals' change with environment. This assumption is by no means true. How can something without physical substance change with the physical environment?

Finally, how do you determine a niche for morality? How can you figure out what is best for a society? If what is best = what the society does, then you have moved to a classical cultural relativism.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Conjecture? I gave the reason as blasphemy... That's hardly conjecture.

The "conjecture" was your seeming assertion that the Pharisees would only want to stone him for claiming to be the son of god. I said that they could also have wanted to stone him because he was a troublemaker who was stirring up anti-Pharisee sentiment. See now?

Then why not throw the whole book out including the moral teachings?

Jeez, considering the entire point I am making is that one can throw out the claims of the supernatural and still see the moral philosophy as valid and applicable to one's own life, I think the answer to this is already apparent! I'm beginning to think you really don't read what is written...

No. Most Moral relativists admit certain principles take precedence over others when pressed. I'm asking how you decide what should be right or wrong.

And I answered that. You call it "moral relativism," and that's up to you--but it's certainly clear (to most people) what is morally best in the context of their own lives and society. That's what making moral judgments is all about.

Well, what are some of the presuppositions of Socrates? One of them is an objective morality. In order to use his method, you have to assume a common morality.

Irrelevant. I didn't mention Socrates to discuss his moral teachings, just as hypothetical example. Once again, you're not paying attention to what is actually being said.

Cultural Relativism eh?

Let's extend your metaphor. The environment constantly changes. Does this mean morality must always change to suit the environment?

"Environment" does not mean the physical, natural world, but rather the sociological and cultural one. Morality is a product of human beings, so of course it will change as society and culture changes. It will also, to a large extent, effect how society and culture changes. But we can see in our own world that society has changed dramatically in the last 2,000 years, and so, by and large, has morality.

Secondly, this assumes that 'morals' change with environment. This assumption is by no means true. How can something without physical substance change with the physical environment?

Oh boy, you're completely misunderstanding. It isn't about the physical "environment," as I stated above. I used the word "environment" to mean social and cultural situations, not physical. However, often changes in the physical environment will effect the social and cultural environment, and by that means may effect morality. There isn't a direct connection between nature and morality, as morality is a function of human sentience.

Finally, how do you determine a niche for morality?

No single person determines any such thing. Just as an organism finds its environmental niche through a process of adaptation + natural selection, so will a moral philosophy find its cultural niche. For the Western world, it so happened that Christian moral ethics that grew in the early part of the first millenium A.D. simply outcompeted rivals (or adapted some of the best aspects of rivals). The fact that it has become the predominant religion of Western culture shows that it was the most "successful," in the same way that an organism that is most predominant in a particular environment is the most "successful."

How can you figure out what is best for a society? If what is best = what the society does, then you have moved to a classical cultural relativism.

What is best for a culture is relative to its environment and particular situation. A perfect example is Russia and democracy. We all know democracy is best for us Westerners. Our culture is such that the values of democracy suit us, and we're suited to it. However, Russia is categorically different. One of the reasons democratic reform have encountered such difficulty there is that Russians are culturally ill-adapted to democracy. Russian culture has always been autocratic and patriarchal, and simply slapping democracy onto the country didn't help much--in fact, it caused devastating problems. Now, however, things will change as Russian society opens up more and there is more contact with Western ideas and the cultures wherein democracy thrives. As a result, Russia's slow cultural change will make democracy more suitable, and as a consequence it will eventually find its niche in Russia.

You can dismiss it as relavatism all you like, but it's the way the world works. Cultures will find what morality best suits them the way niches find organisms that are best-suited: natural selection. Any moral philosophy that is ill-suited to a culture will be weeded out in favor of a moral philosophy which is better-suited.

[JohnT]

I'm trying to convince Laura to participate in this thread - but no success so far.

[Gangerolf]

yeah religion is voodoo