First, you have ignored all of the times when Christianity wasn’t supporting equality; the long history of intolerance towards contradicting ideals. Second, you are ignoring that if you weren’t Christian in the societies that many of these rights came from, you’d find yourself in some very uncomfortable circumstances. These societies could only advance under Christianity or other Abrahamic beliefs. None of the above is the biggest flaw in what you’re saying though.
The real issue is that you come to an ad verecundium and a nice hurdle jumping of improper transposition that illustrates the point you’re debating against. You say that Christianity made ethics, therefore it should be respected to the point of being required for ethics. It seems as if this never occurred to you as an issue.
To apply your rationality to religion, shouldn’t Christians be showing a little more respect to the religions that it borrowed from? I think there may be a long line of mythical sacrificed sons living out the hero cycle of death and rebirth that want their identity back. Also, I think the concept of a higher being was originally that of a fertility goddess; you may want to change the gender of your deity.
Now, please tell me what’s wrong with the concept of basing ethics on a common desire to live. If you aren’t alive, then there’s nothing left to argue about. If you are alive, it’s because you have done what is required to stay that way. From there, doesn’t the common drive to live combined with theory of mind provide for what you would call the golden rule? What higher good is there than providing the greatest freedom to the individual, paired with the responsibilities of not interfering with that of others?
So, in short, where is the necessity of Christianity in ethics?
First, you have ignored all of the times when Christianity wasn’t supporting equality; the long history of intolerance towards contradicting ideals. Second, you are ignoring that if you weren’t Christian in the societies that many of these rights came from, you’d find yourself in some very uncomfortable circumstances. These societies could only advance under Christianity or other Abrahamic beliefs. None of the above is the biggest flaw in what you’re saying though.
The real issue is that you come to an ad verecundium and a nice hurdle jumping of improper transposition that illustrates the point you’re debating against. You say that Christianity made ethics, therefore it should be respected to the point of being required for ethics. It seems as if this never occurred to you as an issue.
To apply your rationality to religion, shouldn’t Christians be showing a little more respect to the religions that it borrowed from? I think there may be a long line of mythical sacrificed sons living out the hero cycle of death and rebirth that want their identity back. Also, I think the concept of a higher being was originally that of a fertility goddess; you may want to change the gender of your deity.
Now, please tell me what’s wrong with the concept of basing ethics on a common desire to live. If you aren’t alive, then there’s nothing left to argue about. If you are alive, it’s because you have done what is required to stay that way. From there, doesn’t the common drive to live combined with theory of mind provide for what you would call the golden rule? What higher good is there than providing the greatest freedom to the individual, paired with the responsibilities of not interfering with that of others?
So, in short, where is the necessity of Christianity in ethics?
Message left by Dan E. on 4:41am, 10/06/2010 GMT