Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 11893 times)

rareairpug · « **Reply #20 on:** July 30, 2006, 10:33:12 AM »

Quote

He claims to be a Christian and I mentioned him as an example of conflicting ideas.

So, if I claim to be an athiest, you can suddenly attribute all of my behavior to athiesm?

Quote

There are probably numerous examples. The ones that come to mind are the introduction of belief system based teachings into the public school system, public prayer and the ten commandments in the court system, discrimination against gays, the Terri Schiavo case.....

Maybe these would be better discussed in another thread? I personally don't agree with your assessment of all of these. I think your statement that they are in conflict with the Constitution is at best debatable. Besides, what does it matter? According to Cogito and SntJ, documents guarantee nothing anyways.

Quote

Ah, but perhaps you are close minded because you don't consider ancient scripts as a possible source of wisdom...
They can be, but they have to make sense. The underlying story of the bible places humans into a position of a game character that is torn between the forces of good and evil, having to prove his worth by aligning himself with the right cowd. Yes, that is an utterly ridiculous concept to me.

So, who is more close-minded? You who dismiss something as utterly ridiculous and therefore consider it impossible, or me who is willing to consider that anything is possible?

Quote

But beliefs/worldviews can be mutually exclusive.
That is why my moto is: Beliefs are irrelevant and behaviour is prevalent. In order for people of different beliefs to live harmoniously, each group has to limit itself to an extent and their belief system cannot be allowed to supercede the constitution of the country.

Hmm...so beliefs are irrelevant, yet everyone is supposed to follow the constitution? What if someone didn't believe in the constitution? Is that belief relevant?

Quote

Empowered and ecouraged by the current US goverment, fundamentalist Christianity appears to have begun an aggressive campaign to dominate and change the general makeup of the United States. A direct violation of the priciple of separation of church and state. Such behaviour can only lead to internal conflict.

Again, you make a sweeping claim, but I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to. I thought we had already established that Christians are to obey the governing authorities.

Quote

Well, we were talking about Christianity, and Christians are commanded not to judge either (see Luke 6:37 and 1 Corinthians 4:5) so your point is irrelevant here.
They are commanded not to but they do judge and attempt to influence as I pointed out above.

But you can't condemn Christianity for judging when Christianity clearly is opposed to judging. The fact that some people do judge is not a fault of Christianity, it is a fault of those people.

Quote

I'm not seeing support for your statement here.
Suffice it to say then that a significant number of Christians find enough support in the bible to violently reject other beliefs.

Again, if certain people do that, that is not the fault of Christianity, because Christianity teaches the opposite. Let's reverse your argument. Stalin was an athiest. Stalin believed in violently eliminating those who disagreed with him. Therefore, athiesm is about committing violence against those who have differing opinions. Is that a fair argument?

Quote

What would you call Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Ch

Dicoll · « **Reply #21 on:** July 31, 2006, 10:31:45 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug

rareairpug wrote:

Quote

He (Bush) claims to be a Christian and I mentioned him as an example of conflicting ideas.
So, if I claim to be an athiest, you can suddenly attribute all of my behavior to athiesm?

I can see the problem with the original question. Christanity is virtually undefinable because any behaviour can be either supported or rejected with apropriate bible verses. You can simply reject those that don't fit into your argument.

Quote

According to Cogito and SntJ, documents guarantee nothing anyways.

Documents declare an intent and a priciple. I agree that they don't guarantee anything. If one voluntarily accepts a document and its principles and then one does not follow through, that person, institution or state can and should be held in contempt by the remaining signatories. The enforcement of the document boils down to peer pressure, not divine punishment.

Quote

So, who is more close-minded? You who dismiss something as utterly ridiculous and therefore consider it impossible, or me who is willing to consider that anything is possible?

You may be able to accept miracles and spirits in your life but my life perceptions have to be modetated through reality cross-checks. You may believe that anything is possible but I don't think you'd be foolish enough to try and run through a brick wall. "Utterly ridiculous" you might say.

Quote

But you can't condemn Christianity for judging when Christianity clearly is opposed to judging. The fact that some people do judge is not a fault of Christianity, it is a fault of those people.

Like I said, you can simply reject those than don't fit into your agument.

Quote

Again, if certain people do that, that is not the fault of Christianity, because Christianity teaches the opposite. Let's reverse your argument. Stalin was an athiest. Stalin believed in violently eliminating those who disagreed with him. Therefore, athiesm is about committing violence against those who have differing opinions. Is that a fair argument?

No, Atheism is not a belief system that is based on some devine script. What Stalin did was to fight his political enemies. He could not possibly justify his actions as commanded by Atheism as there are no commandments.
On the other hand, the entire current situation in the Middle East seems to be justified by some as following the playbook of Revelations, right up the the Rapture.

Quote

*shrugs* For one, I think you greatly overstate his importance. Consider: did you see a mass of Christians with weapons descending on Venezuela after Robertson made that statement? For two, Christianity is not based on following Pat Robertson. It is based on following Christ; thus the name Christian. If you can find where Jesus said to assassinate Hugo Chavez, then you would have an argument.

Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do. I agree that his conduct does not reflect what I have come to expect as Christian behaviour.

Quote

You bring up a good point. Are these people really Christians? How would you define what a Christian is? Like I said before, I think it is only fair to define a Christ-ian (one who follows Christ) by the teachings of Christ. If one is not attempting to follow the teachings of Christ, how could they be called Christian?

Defining "Christian" its a blurry and rapidly moving target.

Quote

Or maybe there are people who would rather hurt then help.

But no-one except perhaps a psychopath would have trouble defining such behaviour as unacceptable. No divine commandment required.

Quote

I might make a similar statement about the Bible. Would you consider the fact that the Bible is the best set of "rules for conduct," and the problem is that people don't live up to it?

I think that the bible contains some good ideas such as the golden rule of conduct. But the ethic of reciprocity is not unique to the bible and it is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion primarily because it is based on common sense and reason. It is also followed by most Atheist I know, independent of having learned about it in a book.

Quote

As SntJ already noted, a document does not guarantee anything. So, how could you possibly prove that one document is superior to another if people are not going to live up to any of them?

I like the idea of guaranteeing human rights and find it superior to commanding rules of conduct. The Declaration of Human Rights is a noble attempt at dignifying all of humanity. The bible does not generally speak of rights but of submission to a spirit. It is a document that regulates the conduct of an inferior to his master.
If you simply dismiss an idea because you think that people are not going to live up to it anyway, why do you keep promoting Christianity?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #22 on:** July 31, 2006, 11:10:32 AM »

Quote from: "Cogito"

The saint is right. Just look at the egyptian book of the dead, the gilgamesh, the bible, the koran, the rig veda, etc., etc. They guarantee nothing.

You think you are being insightful, but all you've done is avoid dealing with the fact that humanistic alternatives have done no better. Rare's response on the same matter deserves attention. I would add that if all humans fail to live up to the standards in all books, than it follows that this failure cannot actually be used as criteria for eliminating any of them. This universal failure cancels itself out across the board, leaving us to look for other grounds to answer Rare's question, "As SntJ already noted, a document does not guarantee anything. So, how could you possibly prove that one document is superior to another if people are not going to live up to any of them?"

How indeed? You need a different standard to apply. You need to bark up a different tree to find your answer.

"To do as the creator of the universe commands if such a creator exists, is entirely rational."

I agree with this and your other comments to Dicoll on the matter. This seems like another good time to once again quote Ayn Rand from the introduction of her little book, "Anthem."

Quote

"Some might think- though I don't- that nine years ago there was some excuse for men not to see the direction in which the world was going. Today, the evidence is so blatant that no excuse can be claimed by anyone any longer. Those who refuse to see it now are neither blind nor innocent.

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one's eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsbility by wailing: "But I didn't mean this!"

Rand goes after quite a few people here, and in some large sense we could all find agreement with her together (though perhaps Dicoll would prefer to focus 'only' on behavior and not ideas, but I doubt he means that since he is here debating ideas), but this cavalier attack on religion and 'rational obedience' to a 'creator of the universe' as tacitly being a dangerous thing which must be opposed sounds very much like the very ideas that were percolating up at the end of the 19th century which directly led to 'a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps.'

You will get no where pretending that you can elevate secular humanism over religion without avoiding the very same issues which made religion dangerous. Indeed, it is not religion that is dangerous, or even secular humanism. It is Man that is dangerous. What makes this thread's attack on religion dangerous in its own right is the refusal to see that Man is dangerous. Any worldview which does not take as one of its fundamental starting points that "Man is dangerous" is destined for abject failure- almost certainly the bloody concentration camp kind.

Dawkins is on the record espousing the view raising children religious is 'child abuse.' http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

I suppose we ought to turn over our educational policies to you atheists and secular humanists, eh? Have the cure for the world's ails, do you?

Are you gents on board with Dawkins on this point? Is it your idea of democracy and freedom to intervene in families and dictate what is to be learned, and how, and when? Are you with Plato in taking children away from their parents and having them raised by the state?

And who is in charge of the state, and making these decisions, pray tell?

Ah yes. Another generation in violent reaction to ancient abuses lays, stone by stone, the road to 'bloody ruins and concentration camps.' Will they escape moral responsibility when they arrive? Perhaps it is not merely religious zealotry that prompts others to oppose them.

Yes, it is rational to follow the orders of a creator God, and perhaps that might be construed as 'dangerous,' but what that really calls for is some rational test to know what those orders are, not merely that it would be rational to carry them out. And if you choose to consider that dangerous, surely it remains dangerous to suggest that it is rational to give ourselves orders and act on them, too?

cimics · « **Reply #23 on:** July 31, 2006, 12:26:23 PM »

Quote

Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do.

He said he was wrong:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

Dicoll · « **Reply #24 on:** July 31, 2006, 05:08:13 PM »

Quote from: cimics

Quote
Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do.

He said he was wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

After two days of criticism.....

rareairpug · « **Reply #25 on:** July 31, 2006, 06:53:49 PM »

Quote

I can see the problem with the original question. Christanity is virtually undefinable because any behaviour can be either supported or rejected with apropriate bible verses.

This seems to be your argument, which I am disagreeing with. Yet, you accuse me of the same thing. I believe the majority of my position on this thread has been stating that any behavior CANNOT be supported with appropiate Bible verses. There are some very definite behavior which is NOT supported by the Bible and is, in fact, spoken against.

Quote

According to Cogito and SntJ, documents guarantee nothing anyways.

Documents declare an intent and a priciple. I agree that they don't guarantee anything. If one voluntarily accepts a document and its principles and then one does not follow through, that person, institution or state can and should be held in contempt by the remaining signatories. The enforcement of the document boils down to peer pressure, not divine punishment.

Well, I'm not proposing that anyone accept a document based on peer pressure or divine punishment.

Quote

You may be able to accept miracles and spirits in your life but my life perceptions have to be modetated through reality cross-checks. You may believe that anything is possible but I don't think you'd be foolish enough to try and run through a brick wall. "Utterly ridiculous" you might say.

That is all well and good, but then don't go around calling ME close-minded.

Quote

But you can't condemn Christianity for judging when Christianity clearly is opposed to judging. The fact that some people do judge is not a fault of Christianity, it is a fault of those people.

Like I said, you can simply reject those than don't fit into your agument.

Ironically, I am arguing the point that you think you are arguing. You are accusing me of picking and choosing the things I like, and therefore condoning the view which believes anything can be proven with some verse. In actuality, I am arguing that there are many things which Christianity clearly does NOT condone. You cannot condemn a worldview for encouraging something which it clearly rejects.

Quote

Again, if certain people do that, that is not the fault of Christianity, because Christianity teaches the opposite. Let's reverse your argument. Stalin was an athiest. Stalin believed in violently eliminating those who disagreed with him. Therefore, athiesm is about committing violence against those who have differing opinions. Is that a fair argument?

No, Atheism is not a belief system that is based on some devine script. What Stalin did was to fight his political enemies. He could not possibly justify his actions as commanded by Atheism as there are no commandments.

It doesn't matter what the belief system is based on. The point is that Stalin's belief system allowed for him to commit these atrocities. In fact, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You just admitted that no action could be justified by Athiesm "as there are no commandments." It isn't based on anything. So, in other words, ANY action would be acceptable because athiesm does not discourage anything. On the other hand, Christianity DOES have a set of standards and commands. It is based on something. So, when someone who calls themself Christian does something contrary to Christianity, I can point to the Bible and prove that they are acting contrary to what Christianity commands.

Quote

On the other hand, the entire current situation in the Middle East seems to be justified by some as following the playbook of Revelations, right up the the Rapture.

*shrugs* That may or may not be, but I can assure you that 99 percent of the people involved in that conflict aren't acting that way because they think the Bible is commanding them too.

Quote

Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do. I agree that his conduct does not reflect what I have come to expect as Christian behaviour.

Go for it. If he can support his "call for murder" scripturally, I'll cede your argument. Incidentally, I see that cimics has informed us that Robertson recanted his statement. Perhaps he saw the error of his ways? At any rate, since not even he seems to believe in his previous ramblings, this example is really no longer relevant.

Quote

You bring up a good point. Are these people really Christians? How would you define what a Christian is? Like I said before, I think it is only fair to define a Christ-ian (one who follows Christ) by the teachings of Christ. If one is not attempting to follow the teachings of Christ, how could they be called Christian?

Defining "Christian" its a blurry and rapidly moving target.

No!!! Christians may ACT in all sorts of ways, but that would not necessarily be a shortcoming of Christianity itself. That can't even be used to support the idea that Christianity is hard to define. As you already noted in regards to the Declaration of Human Rights, people rarely (if ever) live up to the standards that even the greatest document sets forth, but you don't have a problem defining that and what it stands for. This is not a shortcoming of the document, but a shortcoming of the people (a premise you already agreed upon).

Quote

Or maybe there are people who would rather hurt then help.

But no-one except perhaps a psychopath would have trouble defining such behaviour as unacceptable. No divine commandment required.

Do psychopaths exist? Also, I still think you would have an issue in regards to situations where one person's well-being would be in conflict with anothers (and that would happen often).

Quote

I might make a similar statement about the Bible. Would you consider the fact that the Bible is the best set of "rules for conduct," and the problem is that people don't live up to it?

I think that the bible contains some good ideas such as the golden rule of conduct. But the ethic of reciprocity is not unique to the bible and it is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion primarily because it is based on common sense and reason. It is also followed by most Atheist I know, independent of having learned about it in a book.

But that isn't the point. If you agree with everything in the Bible (not that I'm saying you do) then you can't reject it based on the fact that some people who claim to believe in it don't follow it to the letter. That isn't the Bible's fault! Would you consider the idea that the Bible is the best set of "rules for conduct," and that people simply fail to live up to it? If not, then what makes another document (say, the Document of Human Rights) any better? We have come back to that problem again. As Johnny said, you can't use that failure to eliminate anything, because all humans fail to live up to all standards.

Quote

As SntJ already noted, a document does not guarantee anything. So, how could you possibly prove that one document is superior to another if people are not going to live up to any of them?

I like the idea of guaranteeing human rights and find it superior to commanding rules of conduct.

How does the DOHR "guarantee" human rights?

Quote

The Declaration of Human Rights is a noble attempt at dignifying all of humanity.

But merely an "attempt" which fails and therefore achieves no more than any other document.

Quote

The bible does not generally speak of rights but of submission to a spirit.

Yet, the founders of our country derived possibly the most famous document of human rights of all time based on the premise that we were all created by such a spirit.

Quote

It is a document that regulates the conduct of an inferior to his master.
If you simply dismiss an idea because you think that people are not going to live up to it anyway, why do you keep promoting Christianity?

Excellent point. The answer is that I don't dismiss an idea because I think people aren't going to live up to it. In fact, I expect people to NOT live up to it. Christianity is not about "living up to" a certain set of rules or standards. It's about God coming and living up to those standards for us because He knew that we never could. You don't "succeed" at Christianity because you do so well at following all God's commands. You ultimately win because Christ followed all those commands for us.

cimics · « **Reply #26 on:** August 01, 2006, 01:13:30 PM »

Quote

cimics wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do.

He said he was wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

After two days of criticism.....

So?

Dicoll · « **Reply #27 on:** August 02, 2006, 07:08:08 AM »

Quote from: rareairpug

Quote
There are some very definite behavior which is NOT supported by the Bible and is, in fact, spoken against.
The bible says many things and there are many contradictions. It seems that when a religious faction wants to achieve or do someting, they can allways find justification for it in the bible.

Quote
It doesn't matter what the belief system is based on. The point is that Stalin's belief system allowed for him to commit these atrocities. In fact, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You just admitted that no action could be justified by Athiesm "as there are no commandments." It isn't based on anything. So, in other words, ANY action would be acceptable because athiesm does not discourage anything. On the other hand, Christianity DOES have a set of standards and commands. It is based on something. So, when someone who calls themself Christian does something contrary to Christianity, I can point to the Bible and prove that they are acting contrary to what Christianity commands.
You are attributing way too much to Atheism it is simply the rejection of Theism. An Atheists life conduct is guided by a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience. The Declaration of Human Rights is a document, created by man, that represents a guide of conduct based on such life experiences. As an Atheist, I could point to the DOHR rather than the bible to demonstrate the wrong of Stalins behaviour. I also know form within my own life experiences that his behaviour was wrong, extremely so. I don't really need a book to gain such knowledge.

Quote
Do psychopaths exist? Also, I still think you would have an issue in regards to situations where one person's well-being would be in conflict with anothers (and that would happen often).
In a civilized world we settle such things with negotiations not crime or wars.

Quote
Would you consider the idea that the Bible is the best set of "rules for conduct," and that people simply fail to live up to it? If not, then what makes another document (say, the Document of Human Rights) any better? We have come back to that problem again. As Johnny said, you can't use that failure to eliminate anything, because all humans fail to live up to all standards.
The problem with the bible as I see it is that it is a convoluted, badly written document that tends to contradict itself on many occasions. It has been interpreted to justify both good and bad behaviour as history will attest to. You could not possibly misinterpret the Declatation of Human Rigts in such a way.

Quote
How does the DOHR "guarantee" human rights?
Read it, conduct yourself accordingly and then try to make your government live up to it. If enough people do that, we're getting somewhere.

Quote
Yet, the founders of our country derived possibly the most famous document of human rights of all time based on the premise that we were all created by such a spirit.
Those who presume to speak for a god effectively become that god. It is an exellent political tool, long recognized and used by many leaders.

Quote
Christianity is not about "living up to" a certain set of rules or standards. It's about God coming and living up to those standards for us because He knew that we never could. You don't "succeed" at Christianity because you do so well at following all God's commands. You ultimately win because Christ followed all those commands for us.
A vague promise indeed. Lets try to make this life worth living for all.

Dicoll · « **Reply #28 on:** August 02, 2006, 07:13:34 AM »

Quote from: cimics

Quote
cimics wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps we can ask Pat Robertson how he justifies his call for murder. I submit that he knows his bible better than I do.

He said he was wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/

After two days of criticism.....

So?

Peer pressure!
Are you innocent enought ot accept his reversal?

I am not interested in what he says now.
I would like to ask him how he justified his call in the first place.
Did he find it in his bible?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #29 on:** August 02, 2006, 07:20:15 AM »

"Did he find it in his bible?"

Hey, there's a good question. I don't recall hearing a chapter and verse. Dicoll, what chapter and verse was used?

"The bible says many things and there are many contradictions. It seems that when a religious faction wants to achieve or do someting, they can allways find justification for it in the bible."

It does say many things, but people have been trying for centuries to show that there are genuine contradictions. Set that aside... any faction of any kind can find justification for anything in anything. The bible is not by any means unique in this way. By suffering abuse in this way like just about any other document can or does, this criteria ceases to be meaningful. Since it applies to all, it cancels out.

Once again, in a contrived attack on religion you fail to put your finger on the true common denominator- Man Himself.

Dicoll · « **Reply #30 on:** August 02, 2006, 07:52:37 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

"Did he find it in his bible?"
Hey, there's a good question. I don't recall hearing a chapter and verse. Dicoll, what chapter and verse was used?

That's the first question that should have been put to Robertson.

Quote

The bible is not by any means unique in this way. By suffering abuse in this way like just about any other document can or does, this criteria ceases to be meaningful. Since it applies to all, it cancels out.

This is a rather different take from the usual: "The bible is perfect".

Quote

Once again, in a contrived attack on religion you fail to put your finger on the true common denominator- Man Himself.

I agree, man's gullibility is the problem. The bible is just a book. The problem is what man makes of it.

cimics · « **Reply #31 on:** August 02, 2006, 08:17:11 AM »

Quote

Peer pressure!
Are you innocent enought ot accept his reversal?

I am not interested in what he says now.
I would like to ask him how he justified his call in the first place.
Did he find it in his bible?

If he is not being honest now, what makes you think he is an honest advocate of Christianity to begin with?

If he is being honest now, then obviously the criticism has shown him his error.

Either way, he is not claiming he can justify it within the Christian framework. One interesting question you should ask yourself is: peer pressure from WHOM?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #32 on:** August 02, 2006, 08:44:54 AM »

"This is a rather different take from the usual: "The bible is perfect"."

For the sake of discussion, in sorting out the validity of any document or set of documents, I'm perfectly content to treat them all- bible included- as historical documents. Does the 'bible' claim for itself that it 'is perfect'? I don't think so.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #33 on:** August 02, 2006, 11:32:52 PM »

Quote

Does the 'bible' claim for itself that it 'is perfect'? I don't think so.

...

hehe

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #34 on:** August 03, 2006, 09:41:38 AM »

I'm not sure how to interpret that. :)

rareairpug · « **Reply #35 on:** August 03, 2006, 02:56:20 PM »

Quote

There are some very definite behavior which is NOT supported by the Bible and is, in fact, spoken against.

The bible says many things and there are many contradictions. It seems that when a religious faction wants to achieve or do someting, they can allways find justification for it in the bible.

Nay sir, I know not "seems."

You may be correct in stating that people try to find justification for their actions in the Bible, but are they right in doing so? I can claim that the Document of Human Rights grants me justification to kill my neighbor. You would most likely cry foul at that point. How come? You believe there are clear statements in the DOHR that unequivocally state a specific course of action is correct or incorrect. Others believe the same about the Bible. I've even given you examples of behavior which is very clearly spoken against by the Bible. So your accusation of "many contradictions" is confusing to me. Could it be that some of these "religious factions" of which you speak aren't justified by the Bible at all?

Quote

It doesn't matter what the belief system is based on. The point is that Stalin's belief system allowed for him to commit these atrocities. In fact, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You just admitted that no action could be justified by Athiesm "as there are no commandments." It isn't based on anything. So, in other words, ANY action would be acceptable because athiesm does not discourage anything. On the other hand, Christianity DOES have a set of standards and commands. It is based on something. So, when someone who calls themself Christian does something contrary to Christianity, I can point to the Bible and prove that they are acting contrary to what Christianity commands.

You are attributing way too much to Atheism it is simply the rejection of Theism. An Atheists life conduct is guided by a system of philosophy and ethics verifiable by experience. The Declaration of Human Rights is a document, created by man, that represents a guide of conduct based on such life experiences. As an Atheist, I could point to the DOHR rather than the bible to demonstrate the wrong of Stalins behaviour.

Do all athiests accept the DOHR as a basis of their belief? My point was this: if your worldview isn't "based on" anything other than your feelings and experiences, you can't very well tell someone else they aren't living up to that worldview. My worldview, on the other hand, can.

Quote

I also know form within my own life experiences that his behaviour was wrong, extremely so. I don't really need a book to gain such knowledge.

Again, do you believe that there are people out there who would disagree with you concerning what behavior was right or wrong?

Quote

Do psychopaths exist? Also, I still think you would have an issue in regards to situations where one person's well-being would be in conflict with anothers (and that would happen often).

In a civilized world we settle such things with negotiations not crime or wars.

Do we live in a civilized world? And do those psycopaths exist?

Quote

Would you consider the idea that the Bible is the best set of "rules for conduct," and that people simply fail to live up to it? If not, then what makes another document (say, the Document of Human Rights) any better? We have come back to that problem again. As Johnny said, you can't use that failure to eliminate anything, because all humans fail to live up to all standards.
The problem with the bible as I see it is that it is a convoluted, badly written document that tends to contradict itself on many occasions. It has been interpreted to justify both good and bad behaviour as history will attest to. You could not possibly misinterpret the Declatation of Human Rigts in such a way.

Oh, I bet you could. In fact, I'll bet there are nations who accept the DOHR that have acted contrary to it. As for the Bible, I think your perceived contradictions are really the heart of this discussion.

Quote

How does the DOHR "guarantee" human rights?
Read it, conduct yourself accordingly and then try to make your government live up to it. If enough people do that, we're getting somewhere.

But we've both already admitted that people fail miserably in this attempt. Having a document doesn't guarantee anything at all.

Quote

Yet, the founders of our country derived possibly the most famous document of human rights of all time based on the premise that we were all created by such a spirit.
Those who presume to speak for a god effectively become that god. It is an exellent political tool, long recognized and used by many leaders.

I'm not sure where you're going here. I don't think the writers of the constitution presumed to speak for God. But they did consider His existence necessary in order to claim equal rights for all people.

Quote

Christianity is not about "living up to" a certain set of rules or standards. It's about God coming and living up to those standards for us because He knew that we never could. You don't "succeed" at Christianity because you do so well at following all God's commands. You ultimately win because Christ followed all those commands for us.
A vague promise indeed. Lets try to make this life worth living for all.

If vague, I apologize. I'd be happy to clarify anything that didn't translate for you. But, if you want an answer to why Christians behave a certain way, you need to understand what Christians believe.

I had one question that didn't get answered. What makes the Document of Human Rights superior to the Bible? Or, if that is too specific, what would make one document advocating certain behavior better than another?

rareairpug · « **Reply #36 on:** September 18, 2007, 11:29:09 PM »

In the Robert Putnam lecture I referenced already in another thread, he actually made the point that religious people (not necessarily Christians) are statistically BETTER citizens than non-religious ones. Of course, he says that it is not because of their beliefs per se, but because they are involved in a community which makes them more aware and active in the civic arena. Nevertheless, there are now statistics which definitively answer the question posed in this thread. Anyways, just thought of Dicoll when I heard that info. Hope you are well wherever you are, pal. Cheerio!

Dicoll · « **Reply #37 on:** September 19, 2007, 06:54:52 AM »

A BETTER citizen? How does one define that and who's perspective is applied.
Are dogs better pets than cats?

From a government point of view, religious people can be better controlled, through the application of fear, as they are accustomed and conditioned to this sort of governance by their belief systems.
It is much more difficult to herd independently thinking individuals , such as Atheist, into compliance.

If, on the other hand, you look at social consciousness I would point out that you will find more non-religious people supporting liberal, social progams than you would find on the conservative side.

And yes, I am doing well my friend, fighting the demons of organized religion wherever I may find them.

rareairpug · « **Reply #38 on:** September 19, 2007, 08:55:26 AM »

Quote

A BETTER citizen? How does one define that and who's perspective is applied.
Are dogs better pets than cats?

In your opening post, you seemed to be attempting to qualify what a "good" citizen is, so I would presume that one who conforms more closely to the definition of a "good citizen" is a "better" citizen than one who doesn't.

Quote

From a government point of view, religious people can be better controlled, through the application of fear, as they are accustomed and conditioned to this sort of governance by their belief systems.
It is much more difficult to herd independently thinking individuals , such as Atheist, into compliance.

Does compliance make a good citizen?

Quote

If, on the other hand, you look at social consciousness I would point out that you will find more non-religious people supporting liberal, social progams than you would find on the conservative side.

Well, the research that Putnam did says that religious people are much more involved in community programs and social work than non-religious people. If you are making the point that liberals tend to support liberal programs more than conservatives, that doesn't seem to be the most earth-shattering assertion. Of course, just because one is liberal, it does not follow that they are non-religious (though it may be more likely).

Quote

And yes, I am doing well my friend, fighting the demons of organized religion wherever I may find them.

That must be a thankless job.

Dicoll · « **Reply #39 on:** September 19, 2007, 11:36:00 AM »

The opening post details some of the conflicts faced by religious people, with respect to their allegiances. It does not attempt to define a good citizen.

Compliance does make a good citizen from a governmental point of view.

Quote

Well, the research that Putnam did says that religious people are much more involved in community programs and social work than non-religious people

If correct, it just means that religious people are more likely to be joiners, which is not surprising. There are other ways of expressing social consciousness.

Quote

Quote
And yes, I am doing well my friend, fighting the demons of organized religion wherever I may find them.
That must be a thankless job.

Au contraire!
"A growing number of Canadians are losing their religion.
In fact, 4.8 million Canadians, 16 per cent of the population, declared themselves as having no religion, Statistics Canada reported Tuesday in the latest and final report to come from the 2001 census.
A decade ago only 12 per cent of Canadians said they had no religion. The increase represents a staggering 44 per cent jump.........."
http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=3904&sec=74&con=5

The above is based on 2001 statistics and we are very interested in how the 2006 census will turn out.

Author Topic: Can a Christian be a good American? (Read 11893 times)