fatpie42

That's called the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Where were these Christian ethics hiding for all that time?

Besides, if those institutions from which we have inherited our ethics weren't Christian, we haven't inherited Christian ethics. So take your pick: Did we inherit our ethics from Christian institutions, or from institutions that merely called themselves Christian?

Yes. Of course it does. The democracy of America was pro-slavery at that time.

Gamera

Again, you've made my point, not yours. Nichomachean ethics is nothing revolutionary. The idea of being personally "virtuous" is the center of classic pagan "ethics." Regrettably for you, this virtue is totally self-centered and doesn't recognize the ethical standing of the other. It involves acquiring "glory" for oneselve through magnificent behavior. That behavior doesn't exclude raping captured women and plundering foreign lands. Indeed, it PRAISES such behavior. A man who conquers a city, enslaves it inhabitants and enriches himself on plunder is a virtuous man indeed by Greek standards.

Now you cut the cr*p and answer my question: cite a single instance of Greek "ethics" that grant ethical standing to nonGreeks, women, slaves, the poor.

Good luck. Don't look in Nichomachean ethics, since it's where Aristotle makes the point about how slaves and women are hopelessly inferior to real Greek men.

Gamera

[QUOTE=fatpie42;3671940]Christianity is a text. The text says what it says about moral standing. The fact that Christians didn't follow the text has nothing to do with the no true scotman fallacy, since we are talking about texts not people.

I disagree. The church was the main institution for imparting modern ethics. It did so in fits and starts and interacted with other prior existing institutions, transforming them over a long period of time, again with fits and starts. To give one example, wifes in classical pagan culture had little or no rights. Under the influence of the church that slowly changed, because the ideal of marriage in Christianity was not property ownership, but love. The changes took centuries, but by the 19th century wives had accrued various rights that never arose under classic paganism.

History and ethics are complex. I think your analysis is naive.


Again, this is naive. Many, if not most, of the founders abhorred slavery, but had to deal with the political realities of the time. So it was condoned in our Constitition. But there is no doubt that the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including all the rights of man rhetoric, were inconsistent with slavery, and it was just a matter of time before a growing nation, imbued with those value, had to face the contradiction. And we did.

Same thing happened with Christianity, with the reformation.

fatpie42

No, I think you are being naive. If the ethics present in everyday society weren't those you would call Christian, how are secular moralists meant to have inherited them? Secular moralists claimed to be basing their morality on reason, not the Bible. If they were just taking morals that were already present in society and taking the religiousness out of them, then they would be inheriting their morals from the non-Christian society, not the Christian scripture....

fatpie42

Most of the worst things about Christian fundamentalism can be tied to the reformation e.g. the obsession with affirming beliefs, the emphasis on faith rather than reason, and you can also throw in the Luther's anti-semitism....

And you were calling me naive? The reformation wasn't all good....

Gamera

That's my point. They are engaged in back formation. They have incorporated into modernity ethics they assume always existed, but which in fact aren't natural but historical, and traceable to the rise of Christianity.

But it might help to pinpoint what secular moralists you are speaking about. Most come up with systems that are pretty odious and so I freely admit have nothing to do with Christian ethics. But to the extent the accept the notion that others have moral standing, they did in fact inherit that from an historical source: christianity. They didn't get it by the application of reason.

Gamera

Needless to say, it's difficult to deal with this level of simplication. If you have an example, I'd be happy to deal with it. Or I"m happy to give you examples of how the reformation in many ways supported and amplified the NT texts notions of moral standing for each individual.

This is hardly something I came up with, but pretty basic history of ideas, 101.

Amaleq13

Well, you agreed with me but, yes, I reacted in two different ways to two different posts.

No, my posts seem to be fairly straightforward. Of course, I have a somewhat biased view.

As far as I can tell, you seem to believe that your "gibberish" post conveyed the same sentiment as the post in which you explicitly indicated you accepted my point. I didn't see it then and I don't see it now. Two different posts with two different reactions on my part.

ELECTROGOD

Don't forget to add to that list: Jesus Christ--"Father, why have you forsaken me?" (said before god's Roman henchmen carried out his plan of killing Jesus...could also have been because Jesus trashed the choosen people's temple to god...or for being born a "sinner" like everyone else).

So, I guess you are saying that death, despite it being clearly an accident or self-destructive behavior, comes from god being displeased with what you might have said?
If you read that biblical quote you provided literally then it's saying that if you kill then you will be killed or if you say words then those words will be said back to you. Is that what happened to those in your list?

Wisdumb

Jesus' dying was the ultimate act of love in a way. He loved people so much that he did not put up a fight for his own life because it would have contradicted his mission. Being crucified was the ultimate Turn the Other Cheek response. His ressurection acted as an example of the reward for nonviolence and love. Although he died he was given eternal life for how he lived his life.
Now how does this explain how he washed our sins away?, well in my opinion I think that belief is misunderstood. I think our sins are only washed away if we live our lives according to his message of love, not automatically.

Also you could look at it symbolically. If humans killed God and he rose from the dead, it could be interpreted as never turning your back to God or killing him in your mind because he/she will always be there.