jbernier

That is true, to a certain extent. But only to a certain extent. There is another level to what is being said in Galatians. Galatians is arguing that there is a real change that occurs within the person who identifies him or herself with Christ. It is this change which enables the equalization that Paul is talking about. It thus stands to reason that thus who have not experienced this change that enables the equalization in Christ Jesus would not experience the equalization. Thus this is not a dogmatic exclusion of thus who do not believe as Paul does; this is rather a recognition of the existential reality of self-identification with Christ.

First off, equality has had a serious beginning. For instance, a century ago how many women were teaching or studying in universities? Not many. At the university where I did my undergraduate degree there were more femnale students then male. I had more women professors then men when I studied there. A member of my supervisory committee in my M.A. is a women; so is the chair of our department. None of this would have been conceivable only a century ago. Oh, and that little thing called slavery (which was outlawed without mass warfare everywhere except for the United States; it is not inconsequential that many of the abolitionist leaders were Methodist)? And what about gay marriage? I live in a country in which gay marriage is now a legal reality (too bad the US is approximately 12 steps behind on this one). Indeed, a gay professor of mine (who I have always looked up to for his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, regardless of possible consequences; if I could have half the courage he has I would have twice as much as I currently do) was one of the grooms in the first televised and legal same-sex single-marriage ceremony in human history (that is to say, that he and his partner were the only ones married in the ceremony, as opposed to the mass weddings that were televised previously).

There is a lot of work to be done, sure. But equality is alive and well, thank you very much.

This, of course, is an assertion. I have given reasoned arguments for how the New Testament texts represent a crucial point in the genealogy that led to contemporary notions of equality and human rights. I think that such reasoned arguments require a more reflective response than "surely not."

Again, the sort of reasoned argumentation that I have offered warrant more than a blanket dismissal of this sort. Indeed, I take such a dismissal as a capitulation: An admission that you willing have nothing more to say than to rule my argument out of court a priori (what is what, in essence, you have done here).

PoodleLovinPessimist

Feel free to stand where you like.

Of course not. But it is a fact that we are evolved so that social cooperation does indeed make us feel good. If we had evolved differently, you would be asking me, "what if it didn't feel good to be socially competitive?"

It does indeed.

Of course other people's feelings weigh into my decision. It feels good to me when other people feel good. That is because my brain and my social conditioning gives rise to such feelings.

Why should I care whether or not to call it altruism? If you want to label "feeling good about other people feeling good" as "altruism" then yes, I am altruistic. If you want to label "acting without any self-interest" as "altruism", then I have no desire to be altruistic. And why should I? You cannot convince me that it is in my own self-interest to act entirely without regard to my own self-interest. Do you see the inherent contradiction?

Indeed they are. Why should I "transform" my violent nature? Why should I care whether another person transforms his or her own violent nature. So long as that violent nature doesn't cause me actual harm, I have no reason to care at all about someone else's nature.

Why should I feel love for all humanity? And who says I don't love all humanity? I would definitely feel good if everyone felt good. Why should love of all humanity contradict my self-interest? I myself am certainly part of all humanity; valuing the self-interest of all people includes valuing my own self-interest.


Why not? If it is in my own self-interest to have everyone, including myself, feel good, is that not love?

The problem that I have with liberal christian ideologies such as yours is that they're hopelessly confused, and they are confused precisely because not only are they trying to justify a humanistic ethic (which I approve of) but they're also trying to justify this weird ancient supersition in the bargain. Drop the superstition, just use the liberal humanism, and life is so much simpler.

Classical

I doubt that Neorask will return to finish his seven arguments. I would guess he is new to this and has not seen the gigantic mountain of arguments, evidence and logic which concludes that the bible is the work of man. Period.

I know that earlier in my life I would have argued until blue in the face that the bible was true because this is what I was taught and I didn't think I had any choice but to believe this.

Interesting to me that this thread was started in a discussion about homosexuality. Being gay had a lot to do with my learning to think for myself. The bible told me that my life was an abomination and I tried to change. Finally I accepted that being attracted to my own sex was part of my own personal existence that I could not change. I have thoroughly enjoyed being gay ever since. Was I to live miserably because I was condemned by the bible? Seeds of doubt were lurking in my mind, so I began to explore what the bible really was.

It is almost too frustrating to hear people arguing that the bible is true when we know that it isn't, but we must continue to convince people who are willing to discuss it. Who knows who we can set "straight?" :thumbs:

PoodleLovinPessimist

I have a running argument with my friend who's a doctor of sexology. I suspect that GLBs are more likely to become nonreligious (atheist/agnostic/nonpracticing) than straights. She claims that any generalization based on orientation (other than actual sex mechanics) is likely false.

This is a very cute turn of phrase. :thumbs:

Dean Anderson

I don't think they do. I think we just notice it more at those times because of the extreme situation. My point wasn't that people help each other more because of a disaster - my point was that people still generally help each other even when there is no authority making them do so.

Because wars (particularly "just" wars where the pretext is to "liberate" or "rescue" some people rather than just to do a land-grab) let people feel that they are helping someone at no cost to themselves (because the majority of the population is not generally in the armed forces), whereas foreign aid missions cost each individual. It's much easier to help someone when it doesn't cost you anything.

Actually, looking at recent British history, we seem to be far more enthusiastic about foreign aid (Band Aid, Live Aid, Comic Relief, and a plethora of other nationwide charity efforts) than we are about getting involved in wars of "liberation" to help others. The US invasion of Iraq is a good example. Wars to help others are always morally suspect.

But if authorities are there to prevent the breakdown of society, how does the society get to a point where it can put authorities in place. This "inherent" breakdown would stop societies before they got to that point.

Surely it is more likely that societies will not break apart without authority - it is just that people want authority to keep the small minority of anti-social people in check. Not that society would break apart if the anti-social minority weren't kept in check, just that it wouldn't run as smoothly as it does.

No it isn't.

We are not talking about structure (except incidentally). The point of the discussion is about authority. Neorask (and yourself) assert that people inherently dislike authority (and Neorask takes this further and says that this is why people "rebel against God's authority" and become atheists).

My counter is that people like to have authority - to the point where in almost every situation they are prepared to set up an authority that restricts their own freedom slightly in order to protect them from a minority that would break the social "rules".

That's good - because I was talking about authority, not structure.

Although we are not talking about structure, I have to point out that the anti-social does not have to exist before the social. They can arise simultaneously.

In other words, no-one is perfect.

We are all anti-social to some extent or other. Labelling people as "defective" is a bizarre way to put it. It implies a perfect design that some people fail to meet. I think this is your Christian presupposition showing through.

Who says that everyone is supposed to be 100% society driven, rather than person driven and that not being so makes you somehow "defective".

We are what we are.

Again, why does a society have to be "defective" if it has authority as part of it? Why is authority not just part of the way society has developed. Why does there have to be a "perfect" society with total conformity, and any other society is labelled "defective"?

But the fact that we almost always create social mechanisms suggests that it is on our natures to to be this way and that it is in our natures to set up authorities.

You are arguing that because we do A in order to prevent B, then our natures must lean towards B - but our natures must lean towards A, otherwise we would not do it to prevent B. We would just do B.

And I argue that if human nature did make societies tend towards disintegration then we would still be living in small family groups competing for territory. Over the centuries, as our technology has provided easier communication and transport - so the availability of social interaction expands - we have always embraced it and expanded and merged our societies into ever larger ones. Do you really think that things like the World Health Organisation and the United Nations could come about if our nature was to tear apart societies rather than create them?

I do not need to posit a seperate "anti-social group". I posit an anti-social norm. We are all mainly social, but anti-social in some respects. However, most of us are willing to have our own anti-social (but that that we think are acceptable) behaviour quashed in order that others have their anti-social (and unacceptable to us) behaviour quashed. That is why we like to have authorities.

You didn't - but the Gospels do. You told me what by your selective interpretation the Gospels said. I used the same sentence structure/style (hence a "paraphrase"), but inserted a less eisegisised reading of what they say.

Wiploc

I agree. Anything that sets up cognitive dissonance tending to undermine belief in the arbitrary moral fiat of a religion will tend to undermine belief in that religion.

crc

TomboyMom

Does your friend have any stats on this interesting but completely irrelevant (to the OP) question? I don't believe polls on this board support your suspicion.
On a private note, I have a personal, not related to infedilism question I would love to discuss with a qualified scholar. If your friend is willing, please PM me and I will give you my question and my email address.

Rene

PoodleLovinPessimist

No. But it's her more or less categorical position that you can't infer anything from someone's sexuality. I more or less agree with her about most things; of course on an individual level, you can't tell anything; there certainly are gay people who are religious (e.g. Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic).

Still, as wiploc mentions, the cognitive dissonance for any gay Christian has to be that much greater, especially in today's increasingly homophobic christianity.

I don't think we have a good sample of gay people on Infidels; I don't think we have even a statistically strong sampling of atheists.

TollHouse

That didn't work out too well for Job and his kids.

Buffman

I am no longer sure what this thread is discussing after reading the OP. My guess would be that jbernier has attempted to stick his fingers into Neorask's leaky dike. Unfortunately I bogged down in assessing that effort after just a few posts and responses. Therefore, I offer a few personal observations/thoughts concerning some earlier posts.

I have often wished that there was a easy and accurate response to this kind of statement. There isn't. The issue is extremely complex. (The considerable amplification and supporting data will not be found here.) --- What, exactly, IS meant by the "Human Condition?" Homo Sapiens are evolutionary, omnivorous, primate, mammals....and all that those factors engender. (Time, Nature, Vested Self-Interest, Nurture, Reproduction, Pack Conditioning, Etc.)

Human relations tend to be dependent on genetics (the survival and reproductive drives) and conditioning (education/socialization). However, to more accurately understand this, one should have at least a preliminary grounding in the evolutionary development of the human brain.

Then, by carefully studying Maslow's Paradigm (Hierarchy of Needs), one should be able to better understand how "human relations" have evolved over time ...as the number of humans in tribes, and the number of tribes, increased.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper1/O'Hare.html

(Extract)
Therefore, the modern human brain contains the primitive hindbrain region, often called the protereptilin brain (1), and it is the seat of fundamental homeostatic functions.
(End extract)

http://www.normemma.com/armaslow.htm

Whose definition of "corrupt nature" are we expected to use?

Yes! It starts with what appears to be a faulty definition of "human condition." (If the human condition is what you seem to think it is, then the suggested divine designer used a faulty pattern...unless the "divine condition" is just like the human one. You can't have it both ways. Either we were created in the image of the gods or we weren't.) The slightly more than 140 years of accumulated evidence of an evolutionary "human condition" is more convincing (logical) than just 2000 years of old superstitions, fears, speculation and ignorance(unsupported Theory).

Yup! Ever observe mammalian primate groups in the wild? The explanations are there for those able and willing to see and understand them.

An excellent question as the basis of a formal discussion on genetic modifications and social conditioning....with undertones of natural resource economics. (Why would any normal human being wish to institutionalize a philosophy of self hate, brotherly intolerance, and universal fear? Is that what the biblical Jesus preached? Maybe St. Paul, but not Jesus...well, at least most of the time he didn't.)

I am more inclined to believe that violence occurs whenever the survival drive or individual vested interests are threatened...whether for real or only imaginary. Does that mean that there are no acts of purely random violence. Of course not! We have had, and will always have, those incidents just as long as evolution continues to follow its normal course. Does every human have a predisposition for violence? You bet! That is where socialization, education and conditioning have played such an important role in the societies/civilizations we have designed for ourselves. Our genetic senses and drives walk a fine line between our emotional reactions and reasoning abilities. Cultural conditioning can more easily tip the positive balance in favor of emotions than it can in favor of reason. (Lack of air, water or food can turn even the most reasoned person into a raging one of violence. We know that based on a baby's first cry to be fed.)


Would you chance being killed to get a pencil? Aren't we more often willing to violate others when the chances of not being violated in return are the smallest? (Few criminals think they are going to be caught. Few abusers think that they will be reported. Few countries attack ones more powerful than themselves.)

That sounds like the Golden Rule to me...which has been around much longer than Christianity.

IOW, even the Golden Rule originates in vested self-interest...just as does a belief in an afterlife. The difference is that the former has been validated in the natural world and the latter has not...other than in the sales pitch of the Master Manipulators of faith beliefs.