Mageth

Actually, I thought your stance was ambiguous, and therefore didn't peg you as a Christian apologetic.

Xeno

I was not exonerating past crimes, I was explaining how if someone does something bad in the name of X, that does not make X bad, it makes the person bad.

brighid

Unless of course X instructs said person to do something bad, or by example demonstrates behavior that is in fact bad, contradictory, etc. and a devout follower(s) follow that example.

Brighid

Mageth

I was explaining how if someone does something bad in the name of X, that does not make X bad, it makes the person bad.

But if someone does something bad in the name of a system X, because that system X justifies that action or requires that action to be done, does that make the person bad or the system X bad?

Xeno

The System.

But try this example:

If person A is operating in System X, commits a crime justifiably under that System X, and then later on System X changes (although still called the same name practically), should person B operating under the new System X be blamed for person A's actions under System X?

By the way, system x can refer to any number of things, including socialism, communism, democracy, and the church.

King Rat

No, I should not be blamed for a slave owner's actions just because I am white. However, if I make excuses for the slave owner's actions or belief system, then I should be prepared to carry a heavy, heavy burden.

peripeteia

Mageth

On a lighter note..I sincerely hope your enjoying this and not taking it seriously..Believe me im not here to insult you nor is that my intention..Im merely entertaining myself--- perhaps at other peoples expense but nevertheless its still entertainment..It should be apparent that I don’t place value and importance to a lot of our ‘common’ and consented beliefs so I don’t really put my ‘soul’ into refuting or upholding some given lebensphilosophie.. What am I interested in? Simply in showing the ‘veterans’ here that their smug titles are nothing more then rhetorics and parlor games..The “I will show you mine you show me yours” mentality.. Oh sure anyone can parrot the ‘atheist’ creed [or for that matter the theistic one] and bow to the imaginal idols of our poetics,,but I wonder how far such credalisms will take you..You know what I enjoy about continental philosophy it’s the angst and feeling of mysterrium tremendum et fascinans evident in their expositions, i.e., Heidegger and Nietzsche. Their means to understand the decentration of our existence and its relation to the ‘man is wolf to man’ rationality prevalent,,Think about it, sue or be sued, own or be owned, it amounts to the same thing..

Anyway like I said, though our interchanges seem crude and hollow I hope you take them for the exercise in futility that they actually are..I do some work on the computer and this forum is a great respite and escape for my weary head..

peripeteia

Alrighty then..Lets see: do we reject system[x] because person [y] decided to butcher people under its ‘supposed’ influence..Or again do we disavow all contact with system[x] because its idealities are adverse to our own ‘accepted’ and need I mention historically contingent beliefs? What a quandary ..Mind telling all postmarxist theorists out there that because of Stalin/Leninism and their expropriation of ‘its’ principles, especially the dictatorship of the proletariat, they should stop using Marx in their critique of contemporary society..And please don’t trump the orthodox Marxist card assuming that what they[Lenin specifically} did was illegitimate and contrary to the dialectical materialism of Marx..Believe me the postmarxists actually saved Marx from the ruins of his own fatal predication—but alas that is a long history..


By the way this is just one example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater analogy..And after all it was mentioned that system X can stand for anything--of course supposing an infamous reput..

Mageth

On a lighter note..I sincerely hope your enjoying this and not taking it seriously..

Actually, I am enjoying it, and am not taking it too seriously.

Believe me im not here to insult you nor is that my intention..

For someone with no intention of insulting, you've sure done a lot of insulting. IIRC, your first post was edited by the mods.

Im merely entertaining myself--- perhaps at other peoples expense but nevertheless its still entertainment..

So apparently you're here to "toy" with us "mental midgets" for entertainment purposes. And you don't expect us to find that very intent insulting?

BTW, I must admit I've been quite entertained with the exchanges between you and me, and between you and others. I'm wise enough to laugh off your pitiful attempts at insults.

What am I interested in? Simply in showing the ‘veterans’ here that their smug titles are nothing more then rhetorics and parlor games

Actually, I've never considered my "veteran" status or post count as having any significance at all, other than to indicate my longevity on this board. So you appear to be, in my case anyway, tilting at windmills.

BTW, "rhetorics and parlor games" is pretty much how I view your claims to superior education in "continental philosophy" and your smug references to authors that I obviously should be familiar with.

Mageth

Originally posted by Xeno
The System.

But try this example:

If person A is operating in System X, commits a crime justifiably under that System X, and then later on System X changes (although still called the same name practically), should person B operating under the new System X be blamed for person A's actions under System X?

No. A problem is, however, is that Christianity, as a system, and according to some, is not really supposed to change. "...the same yesterday, today, and forever", infallible bible, and whatnot. Christianity as outlined in the Bible is supposed to be as applicable today as it was 2000 years ago.

I find it commendable that Christianity has changed to eliminate or soften some of its more heinous beliefs and practices, but that change has largely been affected from without, through societal pressures. And the fact that it has changed and adapted to society leads to questions about its truth claims, which tend to be absolute.

By the way, system x can refer to any number of things, including socialism, communism, democracy, and the church.

I personally think we'd be better off keeping the discussion to the topic (religion) at hand. Of the four you presented, only "the church" (i.e. Christianity) is supposed to be a moral/ethical system for leading one's life.