• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

European Atheist Marxist philosophers embrace Christianity

1. The same could be said about the early US - that it wasn't a true democracy - since only propertied white males had the right to vote. Jefferson's DOI was the first time, that I know of, where the idea that all men were created equal was proffered, and Jefferson was hardly Christian.

2. If they are found explicitly in the Judeo-Christian tradition, you'd have no problem referencing them? But they aren't in the Judeo-Christian tradition, rather in the philosophical tradition.

3. As I pointed out above, it was Jefferson, a non-Christian, who proposed that all men were created equal. In its soaring language, the DOI was a philosophical tract.

Saying "Judeo-Christian tradition" casts an extremely wide net, for proposals which, imo, would be better described as being within philosophical traditions, because there's no basis for philosophical thought within the Bible. Biblically, the tree of knowledge was the "forbidden fruit".

1. Oh absolutely, but the seeds of Democracy were there, in greek Democracy it wasn't about the equality of man, it was about the polis. Jefferson was not really a hard core CHristian, no, but his Whole worldview was shaped by Christianity, and he drew on European thinkers, whose thought was fundementally Christian.

2. Read Thomas Aquantis, Augustine, and so on, the Philosophical tradition in Europe was historically generally Christian, Kantian ethics (for example) were alwasy grounded in a CHristian worldview.

3. Jefferson did'nt invent that phrase ... and Jefferson drew from Christian tradition and.

IT does cast a wide net.

The "forbidden fruit" was the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. moral independance, which was how theology has historically understood it.
 
1. Well at least you noticed my point. lol. Philosophically though Christian's assert that they belong to a belief system that depends on the belief in Jesus or they would be monsters. It is a very dangerous philosophy that leads to the belief that everyone except true Christians are monsters, and that Christians are also monsters but their belief in a man named Jesus stops them from showing the monster instead of having the personal integrity to do so. It is a weakness of all Christian's and the very root of why Christianity is a harmful belief system since the same philosophy makes for a powerful political authoritarian system.

2. Trying to assert that morality is a belief system based on what god you believe in is about as primitive as one can get. Morality is a evolutionary tool to preserve the species. Its called empathy.
040219_scyimst_empathy_hlrg.jpg

1. NO Christian believes that, hell that belief is countered as early as Paul.

2. No one believes that either, again countered as early as Paul.
 
1. NO Christian believes that, hell that belief is countered as early as Paul.

2. No one believes that either, again countered as early as Paul.

32103-133407.jpg


slideshow4.jpg


the-nations-may-know-16x9.jpg


Go to Church or Go to Hell | Don Currin Ministries

Rev. Billy Graham: “The End Is Near” for Immoral Americans | American Overlook

Morals come from God

"Moral Values Come From God

You say: Moral values DO NOT derive their source from human experience.

You are right, moral values do not derive from human experience. Moral values come from the one who knows us best and knows what is best for us--our creator, God.

If moral values derived from human experience, we would be living in a chaotic world. We'd never know what was right and what was wrong, because moral values would change as human experience changed. Moral values would also vary from culture to culture.

For example, if we based moral values on human experience we'd still have slavery in America. The human experience in the south was the slavery was morally okay. What right would anyone else have to tell another group of people that their morals, based on their human experience, were wrong? We all would do what was right in our own eyes.

The book of Judges shows us what happens when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, based on their own experience. It's not good.

Moral values are absolute, unchanging, and not a product of human experience. Moral values come from God and are taught to us through the Bible."
 
Christianity (or, rather, religion in general) may have been the foundational system that gave us the renaissance, but that is only by virtue of being first. Religion (and the dominant Christianity) was our first attempt at explaining and interacting with the world. We have superior systems now, after much trial and error.
 
YOu haven't really addresssed the OP at all.

Actually I have been in every post. Christianity wont save Marxism from ruin. In fact I encourage Marxists to turn to Christ..Please do it!

lol all jokes aside what you presented is nothing new. It even has a name: Christian communism

They even have neat logo

238px-Christian_communism_logo.svg.png


Sorry I lied I said all jokes aside then brought up Christian communism. What I really meant was Christian socialism. Which as I said is not new.


Christian Socialists
 
Feudalism was an improvement from slave societies

Feudal Europe practiced chattel slavery in addition to serfdom, so that argument is utterly wrong.

and out of Feudalism came the enlightenment

The enlightenment didn't come out of feudalism, it replaced it.

but it wasn't feudalism, it was Christian ideals.

The Christian ideals of the time as practiced by society were in complete support of feudalism.

THe point isn't just the passages, it's teh Whole CHristian worldview.

You seem to think that your personal beliefs are shared by all Christians past and present. There is no such thing as the "Christian world view" beyond the beliefs of those professing themselves to be Christians. For a thousand years, those Christians were completely content to have rigidly unequal societies without question. There is nothing magic about Christianity that makes it create universal egalitarianism, it can just easily be a liberator or oppressor depending on the attitude of society.
 
1. Oh absolutely, but the seeds of Democracy were there, in greek Democracy it wasn't about the equality of man, it was about the polis. Jefferson was not really a hard core CHristian, no, but his Whole worldview was shaped by Christianity, and he drew on European thinkers, whose thought was fundementally Christian.

Full stop. The same can be said in regards to Christianity, "Whole [Christian] worldview was shaped by paganism, and they drew on pagan thinkers, whose thought was fundementally pagan. "

2. Read Thomas Aquantis, Augustine, and so on, the Philosophical tradition in Europe was historically generally Christian, Kantian ethics (for example) were alwasy grounded in a CHristian worldview.

3. Jefferson did'nt invent that phrase ... and Jefferson drew from Christian tradition and.

IT does cast a wide net.

I would present it differently, Jefferson drew from Locke, and from a philosophical tradition.

The "forbidden fruit" was the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. moral independance, which was how theology has historically understood it.

Yes, and God feared that with that knowledge, man would "become as gods" [which kind of refutes that Adam and Eve were created in God's image in the first place], and then God feared they could eat of the tree of life and live forever.
 
32103-133407.jpg


slideshow4.jpg


the-nations-may-know-16x9.jpg


Go to Church or Go to Hell | Don Currin Ministries

Rev. Billy Graham: “The End Is Near” for Immoral Americans | American Overlook

Morals come from God

"Moral Values Come From God

You say: Moral values DO NOT derive their source from human experience.

You are right, moral values do not derive from human experience. Moral values come from the one who knows us best and knows what is best for us--our creator, God.

If moral values derived from human experience, we would be living in a chaotic world. We'd never know what was right and what was wrong, because moral values would change as human experience changed. Moral values would also vary from culture to culture.

For example, if we based moral values on human experience we'd still have slavery in America. The human experience in the south was the slavery was morally okay. What right would anyone else have to tell another group of people that their morals, based on their human experience, were wrong? We all would do what was right in our own eyes.

The book of Judges shows us what happens when everyone does what is right in their own eyes, based on their own experience. It's not good.

Moral values are absolute, unchanging, and not a product of human experience. Moral values come from God and are taught to us through the Bible."

I don't think American Fundementalist's are really a good Source for Christian theology ...

But yes, Moral values derive from God.

That does NOT mean that you need to be a christian or believein GOd to be a moral person, what it does mean is you can't defend objectively binding moral values without God.
 
Actually I have been in every post. Christianity wont save Marxism from ruin. In fact I encourage Marxists to turn to Christ..Please do it!

lol all jokes aside what you presented is nothing new. It even has a name: Christian communism

They even have neat logo

238px-Christian_communism_logo.svg.png


Sorry I lied I said all jokes aside then brought up Christian communism. What I really meant was Christian socialism. Which as I said is not new.


Christian Socialists

... You haven'yt really addressed the OP still ... I don't think Your getting the point of what I'm saying.
 
1. Full stop. The same can be said in regards to Christianity, "Whole [Christian] worldview was shaped by paganism, and they drew on pagan thinkers, whose thought was fundementally pagan. "

2. I would present it differently, Jefferson drew from Locke, and from a philosophical tradition.

3. Yes, and God feared that with that knowledge, man would "become as gods" [which kind of refutes that Adam and Eve were created in God's image in the first place], and then God feared they could eat of the tree of life and live forever.

1. Except that's historically untrue.

2. Locke was immersed in the Christian worldview and the western philosophical tradition came directly out of Christian theological thought.

3. You are doing Your own exegesis now? Again, that is NOT how the passage in Genesis 3 was ever understood in the history of Jewish or Christian theology ... so I don't know what you're talking about.
 
I don't think American Fundementalist's are really a good Source for Christian theology ...

But yes, Moral values derive from God.

That does NOT mean that you need to be a christian or believein GOd to be a moral person, what it does mean is you can't defend objectively binding moral values without God.

I challenge you to name a few completely objective moral values that all christians hold. There is no objectivity to it. It's your individual interpretation of the bible and your subjective moral code. That's why there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations and sects within christianity: because nothing is objective and can be agreed upon.
 
I challenge you to name a few completely objective moral values that all christians hold. There is no objectivity to it. It's your individual interpretation of the bible and your subjective moral code. That's why there are hundreds upon hundreds of denominations and sects within christianity: because nothing is objective and can be agreed upon.

For a moral value to be objective it doesn't require all People or all Christians to hold it.

But you believe killing children is immoral objectively.

You believe it's wrong for you to do it, for me to do it, for anyone to do it, (whether or not they themselves believe it's wrong), you believe it's wrong now, 10 years ago, and it will be wrong 10 years in the future, you believe it's wrong here, in Saudi Arabia, in China and in Antarctica ..... i.e. you believe it's OBJEVTIVELY wrong.

that doesn't require everyone to believe the same thing at all.
 
For a moral value to be objective it doesn't require all People or all Christians to hold it.

But you believe killing children is immoral objectively.

You believe it's wrong for you to do it, for me to do it, for anyone to do it, (whether or not they themselves believe it's wrong), you believe it's wrong now, 10 years ago, and it will be wrong 10 years in the future, you believe it's wrong here, in Saudi Arabia, in China and in Antarctica ..... i.e. you believe it's OBJEVTIVELY wrong.

that doesn't require everyone to believe the same thing at all.

That is not the meaning of objective. Objective means that it's an obvious truth that everyone can agree on. I may subjectively believe that killing children is wrong, but that doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same way. You brought up objectivity because you, like most christians, think that you have an objective moral compass, but you don't. Your beliefs are entirely dependent on your subjective interpretation of the bible.

My beliefs are based on my subjective experiences and logic, while yours are based on the same and an additional subjective interpretation of scripture. Moral objectivity does not exist and there certainly isn't a set of objective moral laws that all christians believe in, as every reader of the bible will subjectively interpret it in their own way.
 
1. That is not the meaning of objective. Objective means that it's an obvious truth that everyone can agree on. I may subjectively believe that killing children is wrong, but that doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same way. You brought up objectivity because you, like most christians, think that you have an objective moral compass, but you don't. Your beliefs are entirely dependent on your subjective interpretation of the bible.

My beliefs are based on my subjective experiences and logic, while yours are based on the same and an additional subjective interpretation of scripture. Moral objectivity does not exist and there certainly isn't a set of objective moral laws that all christians believe in, as every reader of the bible will subjectively interpret it in their own way.

1. The Earth went around the sun OBJECTIVELY before everyone agreed on it .... There is an OBJECTIVE answer to the question of whether or not God exists, just because People dissagree doesn't mean it isn't objective.

HOWEVER, NONE of you're moral judgements are subjective, you're knowledge of them may be subjective, but you don't treat them as subjective, if you did you would say "killing children is wrong, but that's just my opinion, People can do what they want," but that isn't morality, either it's objective or it's nothing.
 
I don't think American Fundementalist's are really a good Source for Christian theology ...

But yes, Moral values derive from God.

That does NOT mean that you need to be a christian or believein GOd to be a moral person, what it does mean is you can't defend objectively binding moral values without God.

No, what you are saying is that all morals derive from the Christian belief in a god. And since the religious right are a powerful Christian group in America they cannot just be written off because you dont agree with them. But thats how religions are though, they believe that their version of reality is the only relevant thing and **** everyone else.
 
No, what you are saying is that all morals derive from the Christian belief in a god. And since the religious right are a powerful Christian group in America they cannot just be written off because you dont agree with them. But thats how religions are though, they believe that their version of reality is the only relevant thing and **** everyone else.

No, they derive FROM God.

What derives from the CHristian worldview is the enlightenment ideologies.

THe religious right in America is a result of modernism, Look at historical Christianity, look at Christianity in europe (that wasn't hijacked by a political party), in American, look at serious theologians.

The point is historically, enlightenment ideologies of individual freedom, solidarity, Liberty, innate human value, egalitarianism and so on, derive from the christian worldview.

Ok what are you saying then if it has nothing to do with Christian Socialism?

Christian Socialism is a political movement, I'm talking about what are the ideological results of worldviews.
 
1. The Earth went around the sun OBJECTIVELY before everyone agreed on it .... There is an OBJECTIVE answer to the question of whether or not God exists, just because People dissagree doesn't mean it isn't objective.

HOWEVER, NONE of you're moral judgements are subjective, you're knowledge of them may be subjective, but you don't treat them as subjective, if you did you would say "killing children is wrong, but that's just my opinion, People can do what they want," but that isn't morality, either it's objective or it's nothing.

So you're theory is that unless you state "But that's my opinion" every time someone expresses their beliefs it automatically constitutes as objective? Do you actually read the things you write? That makes no sense.

Considering you've failed to present evidence of immutable, objective moral truths, the proof is in the pudding. If there were a standard objective morality handed down by the christian god, all christians would be on the same page instead of fractured into a million pieces like they are.

And pro tip: you're = you are, your = ownership.

Christian Socialism is a political movement, I'm talking about what are the ideological results of worldviews.

Yes, a statistically insignificant political movement, but consisting of at least you.
 
So you're theory is that unless you state "But that's my opinion" every time someone expresses their beliefs it automatically constitutes as objective? Do you actually read the things you write? That makes no sense.

Considering you've failed to present evidence of immutable, objective moral truths, the proof is in the pudding. If there were a standard objective morality handed down by the christian god, all christians would be on the same page instead of fractured into a million pieces like they are.

And pro tip: you're = you are, your = ownership.

Ok, lets say morality is not objective ... how does that detract from my OP?
 
Ok, lets say morality is not objective ... how does that detract from my OP?

Your OP was poorly written and contains no sources of any kind. All you did is state that atheists are starting to accept christian morality as the basis of all morality, which is simply not the case, and you certainly haven't proven it.

In reality what's happening is christians are becoming increasingly upset that the world and our government is becoming more and more secular, so you're getting desperate to make yourselves still relevant. You do not need christianity to have a moral society and nor do we need it to appreciate the concept of natural rights.
 
... What? How?

Do you konw what the enlightenment values are? (they are not just one thing)

You're speaking to a guy who thinks that someone who took a slightly raunchy picture with a jesus statue should be charged with blasphemy... good luck getting your answer.
 
1. Except that's historically untrue.

2. Locke was immersed in the Christian worldview and the western philosophical tradition came directly out of Christian theological thought.

3. You are doing Your own exegesis now? Again, that is NOT how the passage in Genesis 3 was ever understood in the history of Jewish or Christian theology ... so I don't know what you're talking about.

1. ) How so?

2. ) It does depend on how one presents the philosophical development of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

It may be said that the Renaissance was the "rebirth", the rediscovery of the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome; and the Enlightenment was the culmination of the Renaissance.

3. ) Knowledge of both the good type and the evil type were forbidden by God. I don't see how there's any other way to take it, all knowledge was forbidden.
 
No, they derive FROM God.

What derives from the CHristian worldview is the enlightenment ideologies.

THe religious right in America is a result of modernism, Look at historical Christianity, look at Christianity in europe (that wasn't hijacked by a political party), in American, look at serious theologians.

The point is historically, enlightenment ideologies of individual freedom, solidarity, Liberty, innate human value, egalitarianism and so on, derive from the christian worldview.
You are arguing that everything good derived from jesus. It is a religious bias.

Christian Socialism is a political movement, I'm talking about what are the ideological results of worldviews.
The belief that jesus is the worlds moral compass has always been a political argument. Jesus, Prophet, Priest, and King of the Jews.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Acts 2:30
"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,

John 18:37
Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
 
First ofall I didn't say that no one thought rape, murder and so on were bad before Christianity ... please og back and re-read the OP.

That's exactly what you just said. You just said that atheists only hold such moral views because they grew up immersed in Christianity. That "true" atheists - those without the benefit of a Christian upbringing - are "cut-throat" sociopaths who don't give a damn about anything but their self-interests. That's simply wrong. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on having a sense that, for example, you ought not punch babies. You don't have to grow up in a Christian environment to feel that way.

Second, No, Christniaty created teh Foundation for englightenment values.

No, mankind created the enlightenment values, just as they created the values of Christianity. Were the people who established the enlightenment values influenced by previous belief systems, including Christianity? Of course. But so ****ing what? The people who established the values of Christianity were also influenced by previous belief systems. :shrug:
 
That does NOT mean that you need to be a christian or believein GOd to be a moral person, what it does mean is you can't defend objectively binding moral values without God.

But it cannot be done with God either. That's the fatal error you make in all these "without God anything is permitted" crap. Saying "X is wrong because God made it so" is no more of a justification than simply saying "X is wrong". Because I can just ask "well, but how did God make it so?" The theist's answer to that is always "There is no how, he just does" or "God doesn't require a how" or "we can't comprehend how God does what he does" etc etc. That is no different, no different than an atheist simply saying "X is wrong" and "it doesn't require a how" or "we can't comprehend how it is so". It's precisely the same reason that saying "God created the universe" is no more of an explanation of how the universe came to be than simply saying "we don't know how the universe came to exist". Tagging "because God" at the end of a statement is not a justification or explanation.

So either you simply accept that there can be moral facts that don't have a how or don't have a how that we comprehend, or you do not accept there are any such facts. The question of God is wholly irrelevant to that.
 
Back
Top Bottom