Mageth

Alrighty then..Lets see: do we reject system[x] because person [y] decided to butcher people under its ‘supposed’ influence..

Well, that's not the reason I reject Christianity. It's more to do with the lack of evidence to support its truth claims. I consider the bible to be largely mythical and legendary. But that is, perhaps, beside the point.

But yes, I think it's valid to reject (or, at a minimum, criticize) a system X if that system is a guide to leading one's life and that system has built-in rules and justifications for committing inhumane acts and has a long track record of justifying such acts, especially if there are superior systems (Y, Z...) which are not exclusive, more humane ,and allow us to live together in harmony without periodically roasting people at the stake and/or rejecting scientific or sociological advancements.

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?

I don't know where "disavow all contact" came from; I don't think anyone here is calling for that. But I would say that "accepted" and "historically contingent" (humanistic) beliefs have indeed influenced or pressured Christiainity to clean up its act over the last few hundred years. With the rise of Fundamentalism over the last few decades, much of that progress is threatened.

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

If this were a thread about Marxism, then I might be wont to address "postmarxist theorists", but it's not. And the last time I checked, Marxism wasn't a religious/ethical system for leading one's life. IOW, that's off-topic.

By the way this is just one example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater analogy..

In this case, there is only bathwater, no baby. Christianity is as Christianity does.

And after all it was mentioned that system X can stand for anything--of course supposing an infamous reput.

It was proposed that system X can stand for anything. Allowing it to, however, diverges too far from the topic at hand, and brings to mind the "apples and oranges" analogy. None of the other things mentioned are religious/ethical systems for leading one's life, and are thus not directly comparable to Christianity. (Islam and secular humanism are examples of systems that would be comparable).

King Rat

See peripeteia, I had a feeling you'd come around. The answer is an emphatic NO if it was only one person and only isolated incidents. It is an emphatic YES if it has a pattern, is widespread, is condoned, and is currently happening.

Stumble and fall. I could easily argue that the apple rots from the inside out. Flawed Premise = Flawed Conclusion. I'm sure you are with me even though I deftly avoided using multi-syllabic words.

Yes 'x' is a variable, fortunately we are only talking about xtianity, so it keeps things nice and tidy. Would you prefer that we use abortion clinic bombings/shootings instead of burnings at the stake?

TomboyMom

I was curious about the word, "idealities" because I was not familiar with it. I looked it up and got

<<The state or quality of being ideal.
Existence in idea only.


ideality

\I`de*al"i*ty\, n.; pl. Idealities. 1. The quality or state of being ideal.

2. The capacity to form ideals of beauty or perfection.

3. (Phren.) The conceptive faculty.>>

Did you mean it in one of these senses? If so, which?
BTW, I find your posts to be obscure, pedantic, verbose and psuedo-intellectual, as well as often rude and irritating.

Rene--am I the only one?

penumbra

posted by TomboyMom
No. I suspect you are, in fact, in rather good company.

King Rat

You aren't the only one. Worse, they are very tired positions, just wrapped in pages torn from dictionaries and thesauri.

Doctor X

If the individual finds dissection of his rants worthy of apology he would do well to perform contrition immediately.

As for an explanation, the individual merely needs to read his posts with some degree of responsibility. He should consult an adult for some of the really big words, like "fallacy."

Thus:

The individual arms himself with a toothbrush and falls to a Claighmore. Rather easy to predict the effects.

If the individual wishes the analysis to demonstrate he is more adept than his efforts hithertofore have demonstrated, he would do well to avoid fallacy, and consider decorum . . . he could also try an electric toothbrush . . . though I must confess the former proves the more likely to succeed.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, of course. The individual only has himself to blame for his lack of respect.

Considering "clichés. . . ."

Whilst recognizing the non sequitur--for it does not rehabilitate his fallacies--I would offer in response:

. . . with perhaps an anachronistic Shantih shantih shantih.

Poisoning the Well with argumentum ad hominem and, unfortunately, wrong.

The individual built his responses on fallacy.

He fell with them.

If he does not like the exposure he would do well to attempt more honest means.

He continues with . . . surprise . . . more fallacy.


Whilst ungrammatical it does demonstrate that the individual is, indeed, not a gentleman.

Should he form an argument built upon something more solid that fallacy and his appeals to his own authority--in itself a most liquid foundation--he would himself enjoined in debate rather than a thrashing of his carcass.

See above. With the fall of the fallacies does he fall.

Whilst the individual apparently has yet to advance beyond the verbal skill discarded by most eight-year olds, I am afraid I and the rest of the Noble Readership cannot obligue him by lowering ourselves to his level--there being a lack of a backhoe.

He may take solace that exposure of his tactics diminishes him quite sufficiently.

--J.D.

[Edited for the Codes . . . the Codes. . . .--Ed.]

Opera Nut

Unequal substitution, therefore bad simile.

"Christianity" does NOT equal "love".

"Things done in the name of Christianity" are NOT equal to "Things done in the name of love".

It is true that many BAD things have been done in the name of Love, assuming we use the word "love" as being something unqualifiedly good. I am not willing to make that assumption about any word we toss around here.

Lest we forget the paving material of "The road to Hell".

Xeno

Opera Nut, I surely did not mean to say anything to get the kind of reaction out of you that I did (angry face and all!), and I definitely did not mean to equate love with Christianity.

I was just saying that it isn't reasonable to hold a person responsible for the mistakes of others in the past.

If that person now has committed crimes in the name of Christianity... well then, by all means, but saying one Christian has to apologize for all Christians... that's like saying one person caught up in the magic of love has to apologize for all the other irrational actions caused by love. Or that present day communists have to apologize for the Stalin and Chinese dictatorships.

Xeno

Mageth: 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.

Agreed, but the fact that it has changed, and continues to do so, means that persons who associate themselves with the faith (and more specifically support it) now a days cannot be rightly held responsible for past crimes.

Mageth: 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.

There is a good deal of material out there on the moral/ethical consequences of forms of government, and in return the moral/ethical consequences of following a certain government.

Doctor X

Xeno:

Hmmmmm. . . .

Leave aside that the Chinese dictatorship continues, they may have to explain how their current morals have changed and whether or not they may still call themselves communists now that they have changed.

--J.D.