danielius

No, don't agree. I sing to myself a lot, but it's all from memory, I don't really have to think about it. Same for playing an instrument while doing something else, your playing is conditioned by practice and routine. It's automatic. Else, you might as well give the argument that we breathe and digest food at the same time.

Anyhow, I'm talking about completely coherent lines of thought - many times I've done two or more things at once, but all were compromised as a consequence. Not significantly perhaps, which is why we can do more than one thing at one time, but I was addressing the broader question of abstract/philosophical thought. It's just not possible to pursue the thought: 'God exists', and the thought 'God does not exist' at the same time. They are mutually exclusive lines of thought, and if you want to consider them both, must do so separately.

I was talking about love; and specifically the love that comes from relationship - friends, parents, siblings, partner, children etc.

I'm very happy and secure with myself. I appreciate your concern.

We live interdependent lives. There is simply no such thing as the so-called 'self-made' man. I believe that our identity is contextual, not literal. If you draw a circle in the middle of a sheet of paper, then cut carefully round the outside of the pencil line, removing all of the content of the circle, even the pencil line itself, yet a circle remains in the sheet of paper.

I believe we are made meaningful by our relationships - I am my father's son, my mother's child, my friend's friend, my sister's brother, my partner's partner etc. It's always a two-way thing; none of us can really 'assign meaning' to ourselves, by ourselves.

I'll try and explain my position. We live in an interdependent world. We are all preconditioned by our environment, in varying ways and to varying extents. Each one of us is party to another person's environment. I'm part of what preconditions my partner for example, and he is part of what preconditions me. If he is in a bad mood, there's a good chance I'll end up in a bad mood, etc.

I don't believe there is such a thing as absolutely free 'free will'. Being preconditioned, I can only do at any one time what my environment allows me to do. There is freedom, but it's a freedom of choices, not of endless choice. I'm sitting down right now while I type. I therefore do not have the freedom to sit down again. I can stand up, but I'm not really making that choice because I'm an absolutely free willing agent. It's implicit in my situation.

Because a man doesn't have absolutely free will, should we assign him any responsibility for his actions? It's a tough question, and I've read many atheists who differ on this very important point.

For me, we share in each other's preconditioning environment, so we share in their responsibility too. A parent has to take some of the responsibility if their child is obese. A racist town has to share in the responsibility of a resident who lynches a black man.

I read a lot, and I watch TV. I know there are people in the States that are dying everyday from gun violence. These are often kids, black and poor. I know this. I've seen news reports of some of these killings on the television, and I've read articles about the violence in the papers. I even have heard a statistic, that more than 11,000 Americans are killed each year from a gun.

I know all of this. I have seen evidence for it, and the television reports are often pretty explicit (there's nothing quite like murder to help the ratings). Do I do anything about it? Join an anti-gun organisation, or march against gang violence or even just write a brief note of condolence to even one of the many grieving families? Could I not do more to help in even just the smallest way to make my world a less violent, less bloody, less inhospitable place? I'm sure I could, but I don't. I have blood on my hands, whether you say so or not.

Now, you keep asking me to summarise my world-view, as simply and as coherently as possible. It's difficult to do so, to bullet-point your whole universe. That's been a part of the challenge of this dialogue. Let me at least summarise what I've written of my viewpoint above, and point to its relevance to my Christianity:

1. We live interdependently - 'To tell one story, you must tell many stories' - there is no such thing as independent or 'self-made' people

2. My identity is made up of relationship, and is contextual

3. Relationship makes me, and us all, meaningful

4. We all have a shared responsibility for the world we live in. No one person is completely and solely guilty of a crime, just as when an actor wins an Oscar, he spends three-quarters of his acceptance speech thanking all those who helped him win

5. Our knowledge seems to outweigh our compassion, we seem unaware of just how interconnected we each are to the society and world around us - we are all guilty, yet all equal. No man is better than another, there are no 'wise few' or 'rule of the best'

I embraced Christianity long after I had come to the above conclusions. To me, Christianity 'fit'. It emphasises relationship above all else and the belief, however paradoxical, that justice and forgiveness can, and need to be, reconciled. It teaches freedom structured by commitment and responsibility. It affirms the equality of all people, even prostitutes and criminals.

Danielius

emotional

Not one of Daniel's points actually mandates a Christian worldview. In fact I feel hard pressed to find out how Christianity connects to those points at all. Christianity isn't a social religion, it isn't about relations between human beings, it's all about submission to God's will (and in that, it's like Islam). And Christianity isn't about personal responsibility, it's all about having a nice, convenient scapegoat (the crucified Jesus) upon whom you can lay down your misdeeds.

Then again, maybe Daniel's Christianity isn't the Christianity we're used to thinking about, but a personal, idiosyncratic interpretation. He just hasn't given us enough details about what Christianity is all about (for him), instead opting to discuss philosophical side-issues.

danielius

No, Islam is like Islam. Christianity says nothing about 'submission to God'. It emphatically speaks to the importance of relationship in the human condition, the holy trinity as represented in Mother, Father and Child. It teaches the sanctity of marriage, one person loving another unconditionally. Love (which is by its nature relational) is the fundamental Christian teaching.

You're right that Christianity isn't about 'personal responsibility'. What does it mean to say that a boy brought up poor, abused, uneducated and frightened should be held 'personally responsible' for shooting a man at fifteen, oftentimes to 'fit in' to gang culture, or to feed an addiction.

Christianity is about forgiveness and rehabilitation. I'm proud for example that my country (Britain) doesn't have a death penalty. 'Let he without sin cast the first stone'.

And Christ was anything but 'nice' or 'convenient'. He certainly did not come with platitudes. At any rate, responsibility isn't about rules, it's about love. It's one thing not to kill someone because it's illegal to do so, quite another not to murder them because you love them.

Danielius

Calzaer

Dan: I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a belief in Heaven (A magic happy kingdom where nobody's ever sad or in pain even though many of their loved ones are being tortured for eternity) could possibly be reasonable.

Cipher Girl

Hi danielius

Well since you've never addressed your own OP, and instead engaged in semantic games, I've not bothered to address any of your posts. In fact this post, like most of yours, has nothing to do with the OP. You originally indicated a desire for a debate in another thread. But if this is the quality of your debate(?), I think you need to educate yourself on logic and clear thinking. Debate does not consist of asserting things and not proving them, willfully changing the meanings of words, and not addressing the topic that you wish to debate.

First you need to show the major tenets of the Christianity you believe in, then show how these compose a reasonable worldview. You have done neither. If your posts in this thread are an indication of the reasonableness of Christianity, you are failing miserably.

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Emotional.... I beg to differ mostly on your comments pertaining to christianity not being about relations between humans. On the contrary, I have found that the teachings of Christ are relevant to human relations. He teaches various human behaviors which are to be a challenge to human nature. He promotes response and behavior alternatives to what we would commonly do. Naturaly.... one does not strive to love an ennemy. One tends to seethe over an offense raher than forgive it. One tends to hold on to property rather than distribute it even to the one who intends to steal it. He promotes and demonstrates positive interaction with the outcast or the " lesser of these". It is an uncommon response to touch a leper without any fear.
As far as personal accountability or responsibility goes I disagree too. Clearly in Matthew, Christ states that he will separate sheeps from goats based on their deeds ..... even those who have claimed him will he say " depart from me for I do not know you". His evaluation of whom is a goat and who is his sheep will be based on their human response to the needy..... including those in jails. It goes way beyong a simple claim of being a follower of Christ and rest on him to cover up misdeeds.
He expects an application of claiming to be his followers......christians will be held accountable for neglicting to care for the lesser of these ( outcast) and the needy.

Grad Student Humanist

Yeah right. That's a laugh.

Xtianity is also about sending people to Hell because they're not believers. What rehabilitative function does Hell serve?

Xtianity is not what you claim it to be, nor is it just the good parts of the NT which you choose to emphasize. The Xtian God is very much a God of vengeance. The OT provideds plenty of evidence for that. And even in the NT, Jesus makes it clear that there will be people thrown into Hell. So tell us again how Xtianity is about forgiveness and rehabilitation.

Amaranth

More bloody equivocation. Digestion/breathing =! playing an instrument, as anyone with a basic idea of biology knows that both are autonomic systems, and playing a bloody instrument isn't. I realize that grasping for such things is the one of only two ways to defend your rediculous position, but please, save it for someone who doesn't find it a waste of time.

Sounds like a personal failure. I can sight read guitar music and hold a conversation at the same time without any lack of coherency in either action.

Now you've completely changed your original assertion in a sad attempt to stay "correct". The second way to defend your rediculous position - claiming you never held it. I have to wonder, Daniel, do you believe that this dodging, not even worthy of the descriptor "artful", is new or original to this board, let alone the internet?

Once again redifing your assertion. Eventually you're going to have to back down so far from your original, rediculous position, that the only thing you will be doing is defining the very word. What an amazing display that shall be.

I notice, Daniel, that you decided (again) to never touch on your frequent use of fallacious logic and unsupported assertion. You realize that not everyone here is as much of a wanker as yourself when their opponent makes a mistake and admits to it, right?

danielius

Strawman.

Try to keep up 'Ciphergirl'! These are being addressed step by step. If you like, read over my most recent posts, and drop in some of your own thoughts.

Another strawfellow.

And you're not choosing to emphasise the 'bad' parts?

My original 'assertion':

'One can only go down one path of thought at any one time'.

In comparison to:

'One can only go down one (abstract) path of thought at any one time.'

There's a word for this, wait I'll get it, um, that's it - clarification - no 'complete change' of any kind in fact.

No I'm not. And try not to rush so much. It'll not only help your spelling, it might prevent you from jumping to conclusions.

I was responding to the claim made by another poster to this thread that 'free-love' is no contradiction in terms. I said that it was, as love requires commitment. My poster eventually responded by pointing to the 60s 'free-love movement, I pointed to so-called 'compassionate conservatives'. The poster claimed that he could have an emotion like hate for a matter of minutes, then it would be gone. No commitment.

He was the one attempting to move on the question of 'free-love', not me. I was talking about love involving commitment, not any given emotion.

Well as you've made two fallacious assertions in the space of a few paragraphs, I feel little in the way of need to justify myself to you, one way or the other.

By the way, my parents always told me never to swear in a debate with someone - else you lose the argument.

Danielius

AJ113

Cipher girl Dan: I'm still waiting for an answer as to how a belief in Heaven (A magic happy kingdom where nobody's ever sad or in pain even though many of their loved ones are being tortured for eternity) could possibly be reasonable.

Strawman.

Please explain why. Then please explain what evidence exists to support the existence of your definition of Heaven.

Try to keep up 'Ciphergirl'! These are being addressed step by step. If you like, read over my most recent posts, and drop in some of your own thoughts.

No they're not. Nothing you have stated in this thread goes even halfway towards supporting any facet of christianity.

Cipher girl Xtianity is also about sending people to Hell because they're not believers. What rehabilitative function does Hell serve?

Another strawfellow.

Only if you are prepared to argue that Hell is not supposed to be rehabilitative, but this only serves to allow you to conveniently miss the point. So please explain how Hell can form part of a reasonable christian worldview.

And you're not choosing to emphasise the 'bad' parts?

And you're not evading the issue?

No I'm not. And try not to rush so much. It'll not only help your spelling, it might prevent you from jumping to conclusions.

This type of patronising, insulting bullshit will do nothing to further your argument.

Well as you've made two fallacious assertions in the space of a few paragraphs, I feel little in the way of need to justify myself to you, one way or the other.

OK then, justify yourself to me instead.

By the way, my parents always told me never to swear in a debate with someone - else you lose the argument.

So did they tell you that in order to win an argument you need to sink to the level of making sanctmonious, patronising and insulting remarks?