CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is Christian philosophy worthy of any credit?
Lots of people who disbelieve in the religion itself still value its philosophical teachings. Whether you believe in its God or not what do you think of its philosophy?
Negative things have been done in the name of Christianity, but these actions cannot be associated with the founder of the religion. It's like blaming Steve Jobs for what people do with their iPods. The religion itself is an overwhelming force in contribution to the positive in third world countries from things like helping fight hunger, to hospitals, schools, etc,... and this can all be linked directly to the founder of the religion. As for the philosophical side being of credit - it's really a matter of values. You have to listen to what the more modern philosophers of religion have said about Christianity, namely people like William James, Soren Kierkegaard, Hans Kung, Huston Smith.
This debate is not about the effect that Christianity has when people put into in practice it is about the philosophical teaching. Clearly gouging your eye out so you do not feel lust, for example, is a stupid philosophical belief.
How else would you argue a philosophy was worthy of credit except for its outcomes? Gouging your eye out is only stupid if you take it literally. The verse is just a poetic way of expressing the seriousness of the problem of Lust within the context of spiritual life. I can find similar verses in the Dhammapada.
Just because there is one stupid philosophical component doesn't mean they don't deserve any credit. The philosophy of Christianity says to convert as many people as possible and help your fellow man which leads to helping people in Africa.
They don't deserve to be considered perfect by any stretch, but they do help with food and education. If we are talking about giving them any credit, all they have to do is one credit worthy thing.
I agree that they often do provide good services, but as you said, it is often done inadvertently, in order to further their own goals of evangelizing. Though that doesn't undermine the actual positive effects that occur.
I think it is only inadvertent because the Bible doesn't say go feed struggling foreigners. I do see how Christian beliefs can lead to help poor countries, though.
I agree with it's philosophy. I like it. Now giving it credit depends on where you wish to place that credit. In the science community? No. In the realm of philosophy or a school or thought? Absolutely.
You have the right to your opinion. Yeshua is the reason why people should be Christian. Christianity offers love, tolerance, and respect. All of the hate and bigotry has departed from the true Christian message.
Since Yeshua is the foundation of Christianity, this is circular logic and is fallacious. You are saying 'be Christian because of Christianity.' That is not a reason. Why is Yeshua the reason why people should be Christian?
That is circular reasoning. Your argument as to why Christianity is good, is Christianity itself. You are saying Christianity and its beliefs are good because of its beliefs.
Yeshua is only good because Christianity says so. You are saying Christianity is good because Yeshua is good because Christianity is good. That is circular reasoning.
Strawman fallacy. I am NOT saying that. I AM saying that Christianity is good because is the only faith that has a God willing to die for His creation.
That still says nothing about the philosophy of Christianity. Also, Jesus didn't suffer any negative consequences; he's living forever in heaven in perfect bliss. So 'willing to die' doesn't really mean anything.
That was not a straw man fallacy. All of your evidence still comes from the Bible, which is the point I was attacking.
You said Christian philosophy is good "because it teaches that Yeshua died on the cross for our sins so that we may live forever if we are sorry for our sins and accept Him as our God."
However, the fact that Yeshua died on the cross for our sins is not an example of Christian philosophy. As such, my claim remains valid.
You are wrong. I am NOT using circular logic. I am saying that Christianity is good because it provides salvation in Yeshua. You atheists awlays play the circular logic card when that is NOT the case.
Yeshua is good because He died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead on the third day, healed the poor and disabled, saved the woman caught in adultery, and so on.
But you are trying to prove that the Bible is valid using the Bible. That is the definition of circular reasoning. You can disagree, but then you are simply wrong.
Up until this point, you have never said anything about archeology or history nor have you provided any historical or archeological evidence. If you would like to present said evidence, please do and we can discuss that.
Saying that is not providing proof. You clearly have formed an opinion based on these documentaries, history, and archeology, can you give me an example of something from one of these areas that supports say, the resurrection of Christ?
He said without Christianity. When you use Christian theology to defend the philosophy of Christianity, you are employing the circular logic that he was pointing out.
Without using Christian theology as your inherent argument, are you able to defend the philosophy contained within Christianity?
Not really, you gave the belief system of Christianity. For someone who does not already believe in the divinity of Christ, your statement does not serve as an argument in favor of Christianity.
Jesus dying on the cross is not a reason to join Christianity. You need to present something of need if you wish to convince people. Jesus dying on the cross doesn't make the cut.
That is not a valid reason as he did not die to save us from our sins so that we may go to heaven. There is no heaven or hell, when you're dead you're dead. The mind is a product of electrical messages and chemical activity in the brain. Therefore as conciousness is dependent on a physical part of the human body when the body dies it must die with it.
What do you base this on? Particularly considering how the Western world derived its legal structure from that of Rome, which had its legal structure since before the birth of christ, and the fact that Christian beliefs pertaining to ethic (aka law) date back to the Code of Hammurabi, a per-Christian structure.
The American DOI and Constitution were based on Christian beliefs.
No, they were based on post-Enlightenment liberalism (referring to the political science term, not modern American liberalism), which ran counter to traditional Christian thought at the time of inception.
History Western law is based on old English common law, which comes from Christianity.
You are incorrect on your posting about the DOI, while correct it was based on what is now known as classical liberalism, it did not run counter to Christianity and morality . In fact the founders mentioned that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.
You are incorrect on your posting about the DOI, while correct it was based on what is now known as classical liberalism, it did not run counter to Christianity and morality
It did not run counter to Christianity as a religion, it ran counter to the current over-arching schools of thought prevalent in Christianity.
In fact the founders mentioned that the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.
Care to provide the quotes you are referring to? There is no doubt that some of the founder's were Christian (while others were Deist), but considering how the founders themselves disagreed on the purpose of the Constitution and what should be included, I'd be curious to see which ones you are referring to and implying are representative of the entire group.
Individual liberty and freedom predate Christianity and are linked back to Greek philosophers. It was the rediscovery of Greek Philosophers during the late Middle Ages that led to the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and the rediscovery of individual liberty.
And don't tell me to "face" you incorrect historical revisionism.
The modern roots of our individual rights and freedoms in the Western world are found in Christianity. The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times. Among the Romans, law protected social institutions such as the patriarchal family but it did not safeguard the basic rights of the individual, such as personal security, freedom of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of association, and so forth. For them, the individual was of value ‘only if he was a part of the political fabric and able to contribute to its uses as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the state’.1 According to Benjamin Constant, a great French political philosopher, it is wrong to believe that people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity.2 In fact, as Fustel de Coulanges put it, the ancients had not even the idea of what it means.3
n declaring the equality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled the kings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over their arbitrary will. ‘The absolutist monarch inherited from Roman law was thereby counteracted and transformed into a monarch explicitly under law.’5 The Christian religion worked there as a civilizing force and a stranger to despotism. As one may say, ‘The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking “barbarians” of the British Isles to decency.’6
At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’.7 And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.’8
The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of England would no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property of individuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure. Rather, they were told about God’s promise in the book Isaiah, to deal with civil authorities who enact unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1). In fact, the Bible contains many passages condemning the perversion of justice by them (Prov 17:15, 24:23; Exo 23:7; Deut 16:18; Hab 1:4; Isa 60:14; Lam 3:34). In explaining why the citizens of England had much more freedom than their French counterparts, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) declared:
‘There is not land beneath the sun where there is an open Bible and a preached gospel, where a tyrant long can hold his place … Let the Bible be opened to be read by all men, and no tyrant can long rule in peace. England owes her freedom to the Bible; and France will never possess liberty, lasting and well-established, till she comes to reverence the Gospel, which too long has rejected … The religion of Jesus makes men think, and to make men think is always dangerous to a despot’s power.’9
The modern roots of our individual rights and freedoms in the Western world are found in Christianity. The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times.
False. Greek Philosophers such as the Stoics believed in the value of the individual, and, of course, they predated Christ by quite a while.
Among the Romans, law protected social institutions such as the patriarchal family but it did not safeguard the basic rights of the individual, such as personal security, freedom of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of association, and so forth.
False. The jus civile, Jus gentium, and jus naturale all served to protect the rights of individual citizens, and the jus gentium protected the rights of foreigners.
For them, the individual was of value ‘only if he was a part of the political fabric and able to contribute to its uses as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the state’
As I just demonstrated, that is false.
According to Benjamin Constant, a great French political philosopher, it is wrong to believe that people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity.
Calling him great because he supports the point the article is attempting to make is silly. Regardless, I have read Constant's Liberty of Ancients Compared to that of Moderns and he leaves out (via ignorance, I would think) civilizations that had concepts of liberty akin to modern philosophy during ancient times, rendering his claims false and irrelevant.
In fact, as Fustel de Coulanges put it, the ancients had not even the idea of what it means
See previous response.
n declaring the equality of all human souls in the sight of God, Christianity compelled the kings of England to recognize the supremacy of the divine law over their arbitrary will. ‘The absolutist monarch inherited from Roman law was thereby counteracted and transformed into a monarch explicitly under law.
Not at all! Christianity brought the European version of Divine Right of Kings, which did the exact opposite of what the article claimed. It, in fact, led to monarchs who were substantially more absolutist, as they could claim that it was clearly god's will that they be king, otherwise it would not be so, which led to leaders such as Louis XIV of France, who famously declared "I am the State".
he Christian religion worked there as a civilizing force and a stranger to despotism. As one may say, ‘The Bible’s message elevated the blood-drinking “barbarians” of the British Isles to decency.’
See my previous response.
At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws.
Declaring that does not make it so. Justice and virtue can exist without God, and thus the state can adhere to his beliefs without "God's higher laws".
As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’.
A little silly considering the definition of jurisprudence, but an admirable sentiment.
And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather then the law.’8
The quote employed does not back up the initial claim. The law makes the king in a secular sense, and a King's will that is not manifested into law is unenforceable. None of that has to do with God.
The Christian faith provided to the people of England a status libertatis (state of liberty) which rested on the Christian presumption that God’s law always works for the good of society. With their conversion to Christianity, the kings of England would no longer possess an arbitrary power over the life and property of individuals, changing the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure.
Which is why the English kings loved Prima Nocta, right? In fact, the entire reason the Magna Carta needed to be written was because the kings of England held too much arbitrary power over the life and prosperity of individuals! Be it Henry VIII, William of Normandy, you name it, there was plenty of arbitrary usage of power and changes to the basic laws of the kingdom at pleasure, all under Christian kings.
Rather, they were told about God’s promise in the book Isaiah, to deal with civil authorities who enact unjust laws (Isaiah 10:1). In fact, the Bible contains many passages condemning the perversion of justice by them (Prov 17:15, 24:23; Exo 23:7; Deut 16:18; Hab 1:4; Isa 60:14; Lam 3:34).
That did not stop them, that's for sure.
In explaining why the citizens of England had much more freedom than their French counterparts, Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892) declared:
‘There is not land beneath the sun where there is an open Bible and a preached gospel, where a tyrant long can hold his place … Let the Bible be opened to be read by all men, and no tyrant can long rule in peace. England owes her freedom to the Bible; and France will never possess liberty, lasting and well-established, till she comes to reverence the Gospel, which too long has rejected … The religion of Jesus makes men think, and to make men think is always dangerous to a despot’s power.’9
Now that is beyond silly. Christianity and the Bible were nor rejected in France; France was a Catholic State at the time, while England was protestant. France was also a far more Conservative (I mean in the social sense) state, while England was significantly more Progressive (again, in the social sense). Both were completely Christian countries.
Your link does not work. Additionally, it only makes sense to look at law as a collective, considering that is exactly what law is. A culmination of collective rules and precedents that work to establish a form of legal order.
I think that, even if you don't believe in God, or in "a god", Christian philosophy (the core of it, mainly referring to Catholicism here) is the foundation to living a good life. Never have I ever heard anyone take a quote (in context) from the Bible and say, "this is wrong" or "Jesus is evil" because it's simply not true. Even if you're an atheist and don't believe in these kinds of things, just buy looking at the core of Christianity, the ten commandments, if you can point out anything that is evil or isn't parallel to your moral code, then I dare say that you are a sick person.
Never have I ever heard anyone take a quote (in context) from the Bible and say, "this is wrong" or "Jesus is evil" because it's simply not true.
I truly believe Jesus' message is quite evil. He says that regardless of if one leads a good and just life, if one does not believe he is the son of God, then said person will be tortured for eternity in hell. Christianity itself holds that to be one of the fundamental tenants: Worship, or burn. That, to me, is incredibly evil.
Well, if you don't believe in a hell, then that shouldn't apply to you. But Jesus is telling us that if you do believe, and live justly, then you will be rewarded. It's a choice whether or not to believe, thus, it's a choice whether or not to burn.
What I believe in isn't the point, it is the concept of it that is evil. Jesus himself said ""I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.". That means that one does not simply get rewarded for living justly, you must worship Christ. For many, many people, it simply isn't a choice to believe. When I was younger I certainly tried to be Christian, but couldn't. For others, they have been raised their entire lives under another religion, and thus can't simply "choose" Christianity. It is a false choice, and it is one that, according to Christianity, they will be tortured for eternally. That is pure evil.
Firstly, what's evil about it? Jesus is giving us instructions on how to live in eternal happiness. And you need to do better research before throwing things around, the Bible tells us that God has clearly revealed Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11), I know this may be hard to grasp, but we are only talking about philosophies and concepts, after all.
Firstly, what's evil about it? Jesus is giving us instructions on how to live in eternal happiness. And you need to do better research before throwing things around, the Bible tells us that God has clearly revealed Himself in nature (Romans 1:20) and in the hearts of people (Ecclesiastes 3:11), I know this may be hard to grasp, but we are only talking about philosophies and concepts, after all.
That is a complete non-starter. It is evident to those who already believe that God has "revealed" himself that way, but someone who had not previously heard of Christianity who goes out and looks at nature will not suddenly know to worship the Christian God. On top of that, it isn't just instructions on how to live eternal happiness, because that one be one that. It is "do this, or be punished for eternity. That is what is evil. The idea that it is either "Worship me and be happy, or don't and suffer forever" is completely messed up.
Just because you don't see Jesus' face magically appear in the clouds everyday doesn't mean he doesn't reveal himself in nature, just maybe not to you, or most people, but that doesn't mean He doesn't. And also, he has revealed himself to the hearts of man, maybe not you, or maybe you refuse to feel it, maybe not your heart, but others can testify, and they can evangelize and spread the gospel, thus ensuring more people like you have the opportunity, or at least knowledge to worship. And from there, it's a choice. And why is it messed up? If Jesus is salvation, and he says to worship him to be saved, if you want to be saved, why not worship?
Just because you don't see Jesus' face magically appear in the clouds everyday doesn't mean he doesn't reveal himself in nature, just maybe not to you, or most people, but that doesn't mean He doesn't.
Again, I recognize that he probably "reveals himself" to those who already believe. I don't doubt that at all. But to those who don't, that does nothing to increase their odds of converting.
maybe not you, or maybe you refuse to feel it, maybe not your heart, but others can testify, and they can evangelize and spread the gospel, thus ensuring more people like you have the opportunity, or at least knowledge to worship. And from there, it's a choice
Again, no, it isn't. I was raised in a Catholic family, and as a child, was ostracized for not being Christian. I wanted to be Christian, not just to fit in, but because I believed it would lead to a happier life. It seemed like a comforting concept. For much of my life I tried to believe, but no matter how hard I tried, I could not convince myself that any of it was true. Mind you I'm not an atheist who is sure it isn't, but seeing as how Jesus said one must recognize his divinity to avoid going to hell, that clearly isn't enough.
And I have repeated myself three times now: It is the fact that one is eternally tortured if they don't that is messed up.
Well, although eternal torture does sound unpleasant, it is avoidable. Some people may have a harder time than others, but I believe that it's just a test to pass. I'm an extremely skeptical, scientific, and methodical person, but whenever I hear stories from the bible, I know how ridiculous they can sound, but I've never doubted them, for whatever reason. As for being eternally damned, if you were God, and were responsible for many great things (hypothetical) and someone was to discredit you, even your existence, leading others down a path of disbelief (remember, christian doctrines say that God wants nothing more than for us to join him) and starting a chain, I'm sure you'd be angry. However, the will of the divine is unknowable, and I don't even know if we have the same feelings, us and God, but if we did, I think that's how it'd go. I hate to sound all preachy and don't want to sound partial, but that is what I think.
Well, although eternal torture does sound unpleasant, it is avoidable.
The fact that it is still an option is what is evil!
Some people may have a harder time than others, but I believe that it's just a test to pass.
The fact that failure to pass said test is an ETERNITY of torture really is not reasonable in any way.
I know how ridiculous they can sound, but I've never doubted them, for whatever reason.
If you have never doubted them in any way, then I somehow doubt that you are "extremely skeptical, scientific, and methodical". No offense, of course, those are just contradictory statements.
As for being eternally damned, if you were God, and were responsible for many great things (hypothetical) and someone was to discredit you, even your existence, leading others down a path of disbelief (remember, christian doctrines say that God wants nothing more than for us to join him) and starting a chain, I'm sure you'd be angry.
Yes, because I am human. That would be based off of pride, which is, after all, a sin. And let's not even start on the whole "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end", requiring God to already know who is and is not going to heaven and having the power when creating everything to change people's destiny based on external factors.
God can't let everyone into heaven, else it wouldn't exactly be a heaven anymore, nor would there be much incentive for people to do the right thing. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's kinda like saying just because someone has a hard time abiding by the law, doesn't mean that they should go to jail, because the law might not parallel their moral code and that would be evil. It's not very good because it's on a smaller scale, but it's the closest I could come up with. And I'm a very skeptical person, for the record I'm always arguing with teachers and debating over material, and my buddies hate that I have to challenge almost everything they say.
And lastly, pride is a sin for us. We are all created equal, so when we think ourselves above someone else it is a sin, but God isn't equal to us, he's above us, so he can be proud and rightfully so. Btw, these aren't just my beliefs, these are church teachings.
God can't let everyone into heaven, else it wouldn't exactly be a heaven anymore
And why is that, exactly?
nor would there be much incentive for people to do the right thing.
Based on what? If you simply drop the worship requirement, and have the requirement be to live a good, just life, then there is still plenty of incentive.
It's not a perfect comparison, but it's kinda like saying just because someone has a hard time abiding by the law, doesn't mean that they should go to jail, because the law might not parallel their moral code and that would be evil.
Honestly I don't understand the comparison at all. Not trying to be mean, I am just missing something there.
And I'm a very skeptical person, for the record I'm always arguing with teachers and debating over material, and my buddies hate that I have to challenge almost everything they say.
And yet you don't question any stories in the Bible, many of which are physically impossible and historically inaccurate? Why?
And lastly, pride is a sin for us. We are all created equal, so when we think ourselves above someone else it is a sin, but God isn't equal to us, he's above us, so he can be proud and rightfully so.
That is projecting human traits onto an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, which does not make sense to me at all.
Btw, these aren't just my beliefs, these are church teachings.
Let the record show that I'm not retreating from this debate, I can go for days, really, but it's like 1am here and I want to at least watch anime before I go to bed, if I stay here, I'll be here to the break of dawn, arguing the morality of religion.
(I wanna get in on this conversation, sorry if I'm intruding here)
God can't let everyone into heaven, else it wouldn't exactly be a heaven anymore,
Why? The place would be the same.
nor would there be much incentive for people to do the right thing.
Ah, and THAT is one my biggest problems with religion. You think that people need incentive to be good. If an afterlife exists, then you are only being a good person in order to get into heaven (or avoid God's threat of eternal pain) instead of being a good person because it's the right thing to do.
And I'm a very skeptical person, for the record I'm always arguing with teachers and debating over material, and my buddies hate that I have to challenge almost everything they say.
I can connect with you there. Since I just jumped in, I'm going to ask my general skeptical question that I ask of religious people: Why do you believe what you believe? Is it from you (you figured out your own beliefs based on your own analysis) or was it from an external source (a book, someone told you to believe that) or maybe some combination/other way?
The question fails. It reveals your lack of perspective. Of course an If By Whiskey argument exists for religion. If you have to ask, the answer is no. IMO, what I got out of my cherry picked indoctrination is without measure.
I guess it's too sweeping of a subject. I can try to find some thread/statements which are about precise aspects of this, and address each particular aspect in a brief and debatable way. But this statement covers too much ground. Do you have a particular question about one aspect which you would like me to try to explain, without derailing the OP?
Well the question was about Christian philosophy. So, do you accept all of Christian philosophy/teachings? Are there parts of it that you think are outdated? How do you decide which of the teachings you think are valid?
Yes. Orthodox (small o) Christianity. Catholicism/Eastern Orthodox. It is the most detailed and complete system of thought I have encountered in all my years and all of my studies. I am convinced of the validity of the philosophy. At a minimum, it deserves a hearing in all public debate regarding, metaphysics, ethics, morals and even epistemology.
Yet both Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism (especially Catholicism) have changed drastically since the forming of Christianity, so how would it be in its truest form now?
Additionally, what makes it more "detailed and complete" than other established religions, such as Islam, Judaism or Hinduism?
It encourages the bottling up and suppression of emotions. Not healthy. It portrays normal, healthy and unavoidable human emotions as being bad such as lust. Also the moral principles are worthy of no credit as they are just the generic ones every religion will have.
Christianity, amongst others, encourages discipline - we must subjugate our desires to our intellectual control.
The problem with modern consumerist society is exactly that human beings have become slaves to their desires - if you want to eat, you eat; if you want to have sex, you have sex; if you want to drink, you drink etc. Problems like obesity, teenage pregnancies/pregnancies out of wedlock, spread of STD-s, alcoholism, greed, drug addictions are some of the clearer examples of what are are created by the endless pursuit of trying to satisfy every desire you have without any sort of restraint. Trying to control these desires is apparently perceived as prudish.
Lust, gluttony etc and all the vices that follow from them, such as obesity, tell us that without discipline, you only damage yourself.
3. Obesity is being caused more and more by a lack of healthy food due to the prevalence of "Food deserts" in major population centers combined with the rising cost of living that isn't matched by wage increases.
4. Spread of STD's is down.
All while society becomes more secular (aka less Christian).
Firstly, you're forgetting the distinction between the nominally Christian and the actually Christian. Most individuals who call themselves Christian are fragmented in a way where they identify themselves as Christian because their parents have told them they were so since infancy. Is that a Christian?
Secondly, there is also a distinction between evangelical Christians who want to do things that contribute to your list, and the more progressive Christians who are in the camp of the positive, people like Marcus Borg. So you can't whoop "Christian" together into a category that supports your alleged list without noticing these distinctions.
Firstly, you're forgetting the distinction between the nominally Christian and the actually Christian. Most individuals who call themselves Christian are fragmented in a way where they identify themselves as Christian because their parents have told them they were so since infancy. Is that a Christian?
Belief in the divinity of Christ is the only requirement for one to be Christian. Beyond that it comes down to theological differences that quickly devolve into no true Scotsman shtick.
Secondly, there is also a distinction between evangelical Christians who want to do things that contribute to your list, and the more progressive Christians who are in the camp of the positive, people like Marcus Borg. So you can't whoop "Christian" together into a category that supports your alleged list without noticing these distinctions.
I never claimed that Christians, evangelical or otherwise, want to do things that contribute to my list. I was not making any claim about Christians or their behavior one way or another. I simply pointed out that while the influence of Christianity has diminished, things that VecVeltro pointed to have diminished as well.
Belief in the divinity of Christ is the only requirement for one to be Christian. Beyond that it comes down to theological differences that quickly devolve into no true Scotsman shtick.
the term "Christian" means "Christ-like" since antiquity. Like Nietzsche, I reject fallacy arguments like ad hominem or true scotsman. Sometimes it's important to know these distinctions.
I never claimed that Christians, evangelical or otherwise, want to do things that contribute to my list. I was not making any claim about Christians or their behavior one way or another. I simply pointed out that while the influence of Christianity has diminished, things that VecVeltro pointed to have diminished as well.
I follow all that, but I would also continue my line of thinking.
Secondly, there is also a distinction between evangelical Christians who want to do things that contribute to your list, and the more progressive Christians who are in the camp of the positive, people like Marcus Borg. So you can't whoop "Christian" together into a category that supports your alleged list without noticing these distinctions.
No, it hasn't. Christian has always meant a "follower of Christ", as Christians can not be "Christ-like" as that would require them to be without sin.
Like Nietzsche, I reject fallacy arguments like ad hominem or true scotsman. Sometimes it's important to know these distinctions.
On what logical grounds?
I follow all that, but I would also continue my line of thinking.
I agree, but I don't understand the relevance of your line of thinking as it pertained to my original post.
No, it hasn't. Christian has always meant a "follower of Christ", as Christians can not be "Christ-like" as that would require them to be without sin.
Either way you want to go it's still consistent with what I've already said about distinctions between the nominal and the actual. Nominally a follower of Christ or truly a follower of Christ. The earliest term for Christianity is in Acts 9:1,2 where it gives the standard not to belief but rather to "the way". Belief being central to Christianity is a modern conception.
On what logical grounds?
Ad hominem fallacy is rejected on the basis that an individuals character is important when considering his/her theories. Scotsman fallacy is similarly suspect if clear distinctions are drawn between the person and the symbolic castration. Maybe the guy isn't a scotsman maybe he is George W. Bush! Do you believe that Hilter was a "follower of Christ" ? This is a clear example of true scotsman break down.
You seem to be indicating that there are less Christians in the world than there used to be and he claimed the same thing. How are your distinctions relevant? They only seem to exclude people who are normally considered Christian.
Teenage pregnancy and the spread of STD-s is the direct outcome of the liberalisation of sexual norms. The more marital institutions have weakened, the more promiscuity has risen and with it all the ills that come from people having sex everywhere. So while it's commendable that teen pregnancy and the spread of STD-s are lowering in some areas, it can be argued that these problems were caused by the weakening of christianity and of its institutions (such as marriage) in the first place.
Teen drug use - again, depending where you look. What about non-teen drug use?
Obesity - certainly, low-quality food plays a part here. However, there are also no limits in a secular consumerist society, how a person should control their appetite. Especially when you have rabid social justice warriors calling an end to fat shaming in the name of a more diverse and egalitarian society.
All while society becomes more secular (aka less Christian).
The onus is also on you to demonstrate, why these problems are lessening because of secularism, and not because of mere rising living standards.
Teen pregnancy is down, STD rates can easily be mitigated by increased education on sexual health, something that the "anti sexual liberalization" types oppose and thus help contribute to.
The more marital institutions have weakened, the more promiscuity has risen and with it all the ills that come from people having sex everywhere.
Do you have any statistics to present?
So while it's commendable that teen pregnancy and the spread of STD-s are lowering in some areas, it can be argued that these problems were caused by the weakening of christianity and of its institutions (such as marriage) in the first place.
No, it can't. Teen pregnancy has been the norm throughout the entire history of Christianity (to be fair that isn't unique to just Christianity, but still), and Christianity has strongly opposed the number one measure that can be used to help prevent the spreading of STD's: Contraception (don't give me that "abstinence" stuff, we are talking about the real world here).
Teen drug use - again, depending where you look. What about non-teen drug use?
If you look at the entire country, teen drug use is down substantially. That, obviously, leads to an overall decrease in drug use as said teens get older.
Obesity - certainly, low-quality food plays a part here.
The largest part.
However, there are also no limits in a secular consumerist society, how a person should control their appetite.
No, there are plenty of limitations from a secular consumerist society: Physical looks, health, social norms, self control, etc. The motivations may be different but the limitations are the same.
Especially when you have rabid social justice warriors calling an end to fat shaming in the name of a more diverse and egalitarian society.
Yes, people who number in the dozens. Real epidemic there.
All while society becomes more secular (aka less Christian).
The onus is also on you to demonstrate, why these problems are lessening because of secularism, and not because of mere rising living standards.
Actually, it really isn't. I never claimed that society was changing that way because of secularism, I simply dismissed your claim. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the things you are claiming are caused by Christianity becoming less prevalent, something you have not done at all.
You don't have to be impure. Christianity advocates that people can slip up from time to time. Nobody is perfect and shortcomings wouldn't prevent you attaining the kingdom of God.
The way you worded your argument made it seem like a man can do whatever the wish as long as they told God about it. That is what I had a problem with.
I'm not saying with surety that people won't go to heaven. If you see my original post (I'll copy and paste it here) I said that it probably would.
Original Reply: "As this would indicate an impure heart, which Jesus can see. This would probably bar someone from attaining the kingdom of God."
To my knowldege there isn't a direct statement in the bible to answer your question. However, there is a heavy implication on nothing impure entering heaven.
Revelation 21:27 - Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
This verse takes place when heaven is being described.
Acts 8:21 - 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.
Peter said this to Simon, indicating that his heart isn't in the right place and doesn't belong with God.
James 4:8 - Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Another verse that implies that God wishes for us to have a pure heart.
Your view of christianity is simplistic and juvenile. Given that you're already developed very clear preconceptions about christianity, there is nothing I can do to change your mind.
It isn't preconceptions when you see Christians fail to meet the goals they set. You won't be able to change my mind because I can point to countless examples that explain why I feel this way. For instance, look at Josh Duggar.
And there are christians, who do meet the goals they've set and I too can point to countless examples. Consequently, there are countless christians who cannot live up the moral duties that are expected of them for one reason or another. Yet in either case, we must distinguish a philosophy from its adherents and judge the philosophy on its own merits.
In the same way, I can't sweepingly condemn feminism simply by pointing at the likes of FEMEN, Chanty Binx and other rabid man-hating women. Why? Because there are respectable feminists with legitimate views as well, not to mention that feminism is a distinct abstract view that needs independent investigation.
I agree that you can't sweepingly condemn all Christians, but if you saw a bunch of feminists doing the same thing then found the part of their philosophy that made them do it it isn't based on a preconception. There are countless examples in Christian philosophy itself that point to humans being unable to handle sin.
There is nothing wrong with having sex when you want. There's something called a condom. You might have heard of it. Use it as any sensible person would and pregnancy and STDs are not a concern. As for alcohol there is nothing wrong with drinking it unless you're getting off your face all the time. You are really making a Christian life sound boring here. You can't link obesity to secularism as you get fat Christians.
Also Christian ways of disciplining yourself is gouging your eye out to prevent lust. How is that a good idea? Christianity just says to suppress these emotions not tackle them or try and pacify them through a proper method.
You are right that the sexual suppression is really stupid. Look at Josh Duggar who molested his own sisters because he wasn't allowed to experiment at all.
There is nothing wrong with having sex when you want. There's something called a condom. You might have heard of it. Use it as any sensible person would and pregnancy and STDs are not a concern.
This is factually incorrect, since there are STD-s that a condom does not protect you against. STD-s that spread merely by skin-to-skin contact (such as syphilis, genital herpes, HPV) aren't prevented by condoms. Condoms can also break, so there is no 100% guarantee of safety. You also assume that people actually will consistently use condoms, which is also patently false.
You can't link obesity to secularism as you get fat Christians.
I linked obesity to consumerism, which is certainly more of a secular value than a religious value. Fat christians simply tell us that not everyone is willing or capable to maintain control over their desires - merely being a christian in no way makes you immune to vices. Whether individual christians can actually live a virtuous life has absolutely no bearing on what values christianity actually espouses.
Also Christian ways of disciplining yourself is gouging your eye out to prevent lust. How is that a good idea? Christianity just says to suppress these emotions not tackle them or try and pacify them through a proper method.
It says that there are good, moral ways to quench these desires - if one desires sex, he should seek in the context of marriage. It's not just suppressing them, it's also about finding the right outlet.
Suppression of emotion is a negative extreme, but also running sex with your head the way we in western society do is also considered unhealthy. Jesus was not all suppression. He told his followers to violate the sabbath (the law), made a whip and violently drove out the money changers, also he "partied" with "sinners", etc, . . . You know Rasputin? lol
Emotions need to be controlled, especially when one isn't fully mature. Do you think every desire is good? No. We may desire to smoke because it feels good, not because we need it. Reason is very important. If emotions were the fundamental basis of our belief, then truth would be relative. Martyrs have reached high levels of self control, humbleness, and unselfishness to the point that they sacrifice their emotions for a reason, which is to belief in GOD. That is one reason why emotion is not the fundamental basis of Christianity since many people who are threatened would prefer to reject GOD and stay alive than die in his name. Jesus is the best possible example because he died for us, his love is so great that he gave his own life for all of us. Would you rather learn the hard way, doing what your emotions tell you and suffering from the hardships of life, or would you rather learn the easy way, with values and principles that can allow you to mature at a faster paste so that you won't fall for the mistakes you will regret later in life. If you regret following your own urges "smoking, alcohol, sex before marriage, teen pregnancy, not going to school etc...", then rethink what you just wrote. If you stand for it, then you are telling every smoker and drinker out there to go by their urges and not consider reasoning at all.
Christianity has a inherent ability to contradict itself, which has made me lose all respect for the philosophy. Every good bit of christian philosophy pro's is so evenly matched with a con, that they completely cancel each other out.
From the question alone, I thought this was a debate about the accomplishments of Christianity over the ages.
Based on the description, I would have to say no.
The secular philosophies in Christianity are not unique to it. It is just a combination of contemporary philosophies crammed together over the course of a millennium.
What unique secular Christian philosophy is still relevant to this day?
