The Book: Reaching the Left From the Right by Barbara Curtis
:10 -- The Gist: Barbara Curtis tells of her transformation from a left-wing activist ("I was that crazy acid-dropping hippie chick at the antiwar rallies, yelling obscenities about the country you love..") to a right-leaning Christian writer, blogger, and mother of 12 and offers advice on how to reach people who think like she used to about divisive social issues.
:20 -- The Quote: "Our mail carrier must have been thrown for a loop when, until it ran out, my Mother Jones subscription was joined by National Review. This change didn't sit well with the fourth-generation, ultraleftist California clan of my husband Tripp. As his brother assessed the new family dynamics, 'We might have been able to handle you two becoming born-again Christians, but not born-again Republicans.'" (p.7)
:30 -- The Good: Curtis' life experiences make for a compelling story.
:40 -- The Bad: The practical advice tends to veer toward the trite and obvious ("Know how to end a disagreement agreeably - agreeing to disagree.").
:50 -- The Verdict: Whether discussing homosexuality, abortion, or feminism, Curtis provides a model for how to show compassion for people while remaining uncompromising on principles. This brief, readable book is refreshingly practical and focuses on down-to-earth debates rather than abstract policy arguments.
:60 -- The Recommendation: Buy the book for a conservative high-school or college age student. Young right-wingers can learn a lot from this hipster grandmother.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3644
1
"Whether discussing homosexuality, abortion, or feminism, Curtis provides a model for how to show compassion for people while remaining uncompromising on principles."
posted on 06.01.2007 7:33 AMAt best laughable...the so called "compassion" that christian cultists and their assorted theologian crackpots offer their opponet as a gift is in fact a barely veiled insult...their version of obnoxiousness i suppose. I ll be willing to seriously consider the opinions of religionists on anything just as soon as they see fit to releguade their ridiculous fairy tales to the same repository where children dump their belief in santa claus and the easter bunny as soon as they grow up!
2
Any one hear about the recent debate between authors Christopher Hitchens and Chris Hedges?
Hitchens is an example of someone coming from a far left position, but now supports the continued occupation of Iraq and President Bush prosecution of the so-called "war on terror". He is not very supportive of religious belief-I guess you could call him a a secular neo-con.
More info about the debate can be found at
www.alternet.org/story/52449/
Readers of this blog may recall that Hitchens did a lecture at the FRC a few years ago. Maybe they will Chris Hedges to speak to them too?
posted on 06.01.2007 10:38 AM3
Well, I'm kind of new to this site so maybe I've missed something. But, Ludwig, bless your heart, if you don't care for the opinions of "religionists", um, why are you reading this blog? And taking the time to comment on it no less?
posted on 06.01.2007 11:45 PM4
Ludwig, do you suppose it's impossible for someone to disagree with another's lifestyle and still show them genuine compassion? Pretty sad thought.
If a homosexual was in need, I would not turn them down. Nor would I be afraid to associate with them or be a friend. Matter of fact, that's just what I've done before. So is that nothing more than a pretentious "insult" to them? Are all actions like that a farse? Why do you presume to know the motive of every Christian?
posted on 06.02.2007 2:18 AM5
"Well, I'm kind of new to this site so maybe I've missed something. But, Ludwig, bless your heart, if you don't care for the opinions of "religionists", um, why are you reading this blog? And taking the time to comment on it no less?"
posted on 06.02.2007 3:19 AMlots of other more rational folks visit this blog as well...and i always believed it was much more efficient to take the fight to the religionists own threading ground instead of waiting for themto come for you unexpectedly...imagine if someone had been there to kill the idea of the unholy inquisition while it was still in its infancy. history has demonstrated quite convincingly that conceding any ground to religionists on anything is always a fatal mistake.
6
"Ludwig, do you suppose it's impossible for someone to disagree with another's lifestyle and still show them genuine compassion? Pretty sad thought."
posted on 06.02.2007 3:22 AMi think whats sad and very insulting is your mnisguided belief that homosexuals would welcome your compassion for their being homosexuals.
7
Ludwig wrote: i always believed it was much more efficient to take the fight to the religionists own threading ground
Welcome. Just make sure you're well armed and that you're attacking more than a straw target. So far, you aren't doing very well. For example, you wrote i think whats sad and very insulting is your mnisguided belief that homosexuals would welcome your compassion for their being homosexuals.
What nonsense! Of course homosexuals won't welcome this, because they see it as an insult to their very being.[1]
Our compassion does not derive from their being homosexuals, but because they are human beings, made in the image of God. We have no compassion for sin, whatever its form, only the individual because they are loved by God.
------
posted on 06.02.2007 10:35 AM[1] Make no mistake, Christianity is an insult to the very being of everyone. Some people, however, think that a particular group is being singled out and thereby become offended. This just means that they haven't received the correct message.
8
Ludwig wrote: i always believed it was much more efficient to take the fight to the religionists own threading ground
Welcome. Just make sure you're well armed and that you're attacking more than a straw target. So far, you aren't doing very well. For example, you wrote i think whats sad and very insulting is your mnisguided belief that homosexuals would welcome your compassion for their being homosexuals.
What nonsense! Of course homosexuals won't welcome this, because they see it as an insult to their very being.[1]
Our compassion does not derive from their being homosexuals, but because they are human beings, made in the image of God. We have no compassion for sin, whatever its form, only the individual because they are loved by God.
------
posted on 06.02.2007 10:35 AM[1] Make no mistake, Christianity is an insult to the very being of everyone. Some people, however, think that a particular group is being singled out and thereby become offended. This just means that they haven't received the correct message.
9
"[1] Make no mistake, Christianity is an insult to the very being of everyone. Some people, however, think that a particular group is being singled out and thereby become offended. This just means that they haven't received the correct message."
posted on 06.02.2007 2:41 PMit is indeed insulting to predicate your thinking on the false notion that there s something inherently "wrong" with us to the point that we need to be "forgiven" by some mythological cosmic daddy figure who shakes a finger at us from the late bronze age. what you call "sin" is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to make us feel guilty for being what we are and its done by people who wants to have power over the rest of us by making themselves the conduit to that idiotic notion of "forgiveness of sin"...its nothing more than a snake oil sales pitch thats been going on for 1700 years and if you ask me,thats 1700 years too many.
10
Ludwig writes, "history has demonstrated quite convincingly that conceding any ground to religionists on anything is always a fatal mistake"
Ya, I guess letting all the Christian around the world for the past 2000 years who have operated orphanges, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, disaster relief agencies, etc. was very fatal. Rrrright.
Meanwhile, people who believe in nothing but the natural universe with no God to give value to humanity have succeeded in aborting thousands of babies every day.
I guess I just don't know what "fatal" means.
posted on 06.02.2007 2:55 PM11
"Ya, I guess letting all the Christian around the world for the past 2000 years who have operated orphanges, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, disaster relief agencies, etc. was very fatal. Rrrright."
well,not to quibble over details but 2000 years ago there were no christians,since christianity really began under the reign of the pagan emperor Constantine...at the time,pagans and christians could still co exist but when his successor,who actually was a christian decided to render pagan worship an offense punishable by death,other christians made it a point to observe this new edict with wanton zeal,murdering anyone who refused to renounce their ancestral beliefs in favor of the new,despotic cult. once the "competition" was eliminated, christians began terrorising each other,always on the lookout for those individuals deemed not christian enough...which most of the time meant anyone who had the nerve to believe they could think for themselves. The "benign" form of christianity that you refer to,a few exceptions aside, pretty much appeared only in the last century or so...i very much doubt you d ever want to meet a christian zealot of 300 years after the time of Jesus...you d probably run screaming from the sight of them.
"Meanwhile, people who believe in nothing but the natural universe with no God to give value to humanity have succeeded in aborting thousands of babies every day."
oh...is this gonna be another one of those moronic "Without God there are no morals" tripes? maybe you didnt get the memo. What you call a moral center is actually a biological function hardwired into the brain of...get this...almost EVERY SOCIAL ANIMAL ON EARTH...not just people but also lions,dogs,chimps...hell even RATS. They did a few experiemnts a few years back where they had 2 rats in adjacent cages and set it up so that whenever the only rat that had food in his cage touched it to eat,the other rat would get an electric shock. Well it turns out that after a short while when the rat with food figured out that its buddy would get a painfull shock every time it ate,the rat with the food would forego eating,to the point of starving itself,rather than inflict further pain on its fellow rat...gee,i wonder who translated the bable into rat squeeks so rats could learn all about moral values...
"I guess I just don't know what "fatal" means."
posted on 06.02.2007 4:24 PMi guess you dont indeed.
12
Ludwig:
lots of other more rational folks visit this blog
You'll get not argument on that point.
posted on 06.02.2007 4:53 PM13
Ludwig writes: oh...is this gonna be another one of those moronic "Without God there are no morals" tripes? maybe you didnt get the memo. What you call a moral center is actually a biological function hardwired into the brain of...get this...almost EVERY SOCIAL ANIMAL ON EARTH...not just people but also lions,dogs,chimps...hell even RATS.
You obviously haven't thought this out, have you? If our moral center is hardwired in our brains, then does this mean that you are a slave to this center? If you are, then what? And if you aren't, then on what basis do you decide to ignore it? Furthermore, on what basis do you decide between individuals who disagree on moral issues? You certainly wouldn't want to impose your moral values on someone else, would you?
posted on 06.02.2007 7:14 PM14
If you'll pardon me for pointing out, it certainly seems to me like he would. He doesn't think that is so (because we're all supposedly hardwired for a certain societal moral code), but he certainly tries awfully hard to convince everybody that homosexuality is not a disordered act for it to be otherwise.
posted on 06.02.2007 9:41 PM15
smmtheory wrote If you'll pardon me for pointing out...
Not at all. You see what I see; perhaps Ludwig will see it, too.
posted on 06.02.2007 10:02 PMWhat Ludwig, and atheists in general, don't seem to appreciate is that is is not ought. Since he accepts the claim that we are hardwired for morality, I suppose he accepts the claim that we are also hardwired for worship. He can't have one without the other. Now, he has to ask, "is it good that man, in general, is wired for worship?" If his moral center says "yes", then he has to admit that he is not good, since he does not worship. If his moral center says "no", then he has to ask whether or not his moral center is defective. How does he make that determination? How does he go from is to ought?
16
"You obviously haven't thought this out, have you? If our moral center is hardwired in our brains, then does this mean that you are a slave to this center? If you are, then what? And if you aren't, then on what basis do you decide to ignore it?"
most of us are indeed quite capable of over-ruling our impulses and use our higher brain fucntion to come up with a compromise solution that adress whatever situation we are faced with,how we feel about it and what may need to be done about it. It can be a challenging question indeed but thats not necessarely a bad thing in and of itself...from the resolution of challenges comes experience that allows us to grow as individuals...we are not slaves to our brain but nor are we independent from it and this world is far too complex to led itself to the quickfix solutions of "thou shalt not X". I d say its whoever wrote the bible that did not think it through.
"Furthermore, on what basis do you decide between individuals who disagree on moral issues?"
feelings...experiences...sometimes consensus...making it up as we go along...all of the above...some of the above in varying combination.
"You certainly wouldn't want to impose your moral values on someone else, would you?"
posted on 06.03.2007 4:38 AMonce again...no easy binary answer...depends on the situation.
17
"If you'll pardon me for pointing out, it certainly seems to me like he would. He doesn't think that is so (because we're all supposedly hardwired for a certain societal moral code), but he certainly tries awfully hard to convince everybody that homosexuality is not a disordered act for it to be otherwise."
posted on 06.03.2007 4:51 AMhomosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon...it is present in a sizable segment of many animal populations on earth,including human beings...i dont have to convince anyone of anything...that is a well established FACT and its not in question. what is seriously in question however is weather or not this particular behaviour its imprinted with a black spot in the eyes of some recycled Sumerian mountain diety from the late bronze age. But on an even broader note,can you tell me what compelling reason could there be for anyone not infected with the juvenile need for an astral chaperon to believe that God,assuming it exists,considers anything we do to be sinfull?
18
"Since he accepts the claim that we are hardwired for morality, I suppose he accepts the claim that we are also hardwired for worship."
posted on 06.03.2007 5:16 AMon some instinctive level i suppose we all do...its an offshoot of the fact that we are patern seeking animals...its a way to try and make sense of the universe...the same reason why people like to try and see shapes in clouds or determine that some star formations may look like somethings found on earth. We all do it to some degree...even atheists. The problem with you christians however is that you think its either the God of the king james version of the bible...or nothing at all. You reduce the billions of possibilities in the vast universe to a few sentences in a dusty old book and then go on claiming that we are the center of it all...thats not merely arrogant...its completely irrational and insane to believe that any being who took the time to create all of this would debase itself with choosing favorites...thats how a HUMAN would think and even then,a foolish one...ask a painter if he bothers to determing with pigment he considers to be the cornerstone of his canvas...he ll think the very question to be nuts.
19
Ludwig writes homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon...
So is obesity, but that doesn't make it right. The strong killing the weak is also a naturally occurring phenomenon. Does that make it ok? Once again, you're caught in an inability to rationally describe why what is either ought or ought not to be.
We are designed by God for a purpose. That purpose does not include homosexuality, any more than it includes obesity, or predatory behavior.
But on an even broader note,can you tell me what compelling reason could there be for ... God,assuming it exists,considers anything we do to be sinfull?
Because what we do is a reflection of what we are, and God cares deeply about what we are. As C. S. Lewis so succinctly put it: There are only two types of people. Those who, in the end, say "My will be done" and those who say "Thy will be done."
The former will never be happy living with God and so they make up all sorts of fine sounding excuses to hide from Him.
posted on 06.03.2007 6:09 AM20
I asked Ludwig:
[wrf3] You certainly wouldn't want to impose your moral values on someone else, would you?
once again...no easy binary answer...depends on the situation.
Oh, so there might be a case where one group could morally impose their moral values on another! How interesting. Then why do you condemn others when they do it? They think there reasons are good and sufficient, and since you obviously have a defective moral center, who are you to say they are wrong?
posted on 06.03.2007 6:14 AM21
"So is obesity, but that doesn't make it right."
Obesity is unhealthy but then again,so is spending any appreciable time on one s knees,an activity which over time damages the kneecap and ligaments,leading to early onset of arthritis. but like homosexuality,neither is immoral.
"The strong killing the weak is also a naturally occurring phenomenon."
thats right...and by that are you implying that you are an immoral,evil being for killing the bird that you eat?...or that the bird is immoral and evil for killing the worm that it eats? Everything that you eat is "weaker" then you...otherwise you would be eaten by it. Find me a creature on this planet that does not kill something in order to survive.
"Does that make it ok? Once again, you're caught in an inability to rationally describe why what is either ought or ought not to be."
thats somethign we do case by case buddy.
"We are designed by God for a purpose. That purpose does not include homosexuality, any more than it includes obesity, or predatory behavior."
I submit to you that if that purpose was not served by obesity,homosexuality or predatory behaviour,none of those things would exist....i eargerly await the "Fall" counter argument...i get a chuckle out of that dememted piece of drivel everytime someone tries to go "ha ha !" with it
"Because what we do is a reflection of what we are, and God cares deeply about what we are. As C. S. Lewis so succinctly put it: There are only two types of people. Those who, in the end, say "My will be done" and those who say "Thy will be done.""
And since you have not demonstrated to me in any way how you would even know if God exists,let alone thats its the God of the king james version of the bible,let alone what its will may or may not be,i ll continue to proceed under the very wise and rational assumption that you are merely interjecting YOUR will and calling it God's.
"The former will never be happy living with God and so they make up all sorts of fine sounding excuses to hide from Him."
posted on 06.03.2007 7:37 AMI happen to be very happy living under God's will...the real one that is...the one who's laws cannot be broken,no matter how hard we may try.
22
"Oh, so there might be a case where one group could morally impose their moral values on another! How interesting. Then why do you condemn others when they do it? They think there reasons are good and sufficient, and since you obviously have a defective moral center, who are you to say they are wrong?"
posted on 06.03.2007 7:50 AMI use the golden rule as a guide on how to act towards others...you know,the one that was articulated by a chinese bureaucrat 1000 years before christians at the council of Nicea falsely attributed it to their Jesus....treat others as you would have them treat you. I try to apply it to every situation...its not always easy but as i said before,nothing worthwhile ever is. If thats what you consider to be a defective moral center,you obviously do not possess the intelect required to pass judgement my character.
23
In your cosmology, in other words, humans are no different than animals... there is nothing that sets us apart from animals.
It is a well established assertion only. Assertion differs from fact, and while you might not question it, there are plenty of us who do.
If you've already decided what answers you will accept, why bother asking the questions?
It's hardly a broader note when you insist on setting parameters for the answer that through some slim possibility might satisfy you.
posted on 06.03.2007 11:46 AM24
Ludwig, in #9 you said:
"it is indeed insulting to predicate your thinking on the false notion that there s something inherently "wrong" with us to the point that we need to be "forgiven" by some mythological cosmic daddy figure who shakes a finger at us from the late bronze age. what you call "sin" is nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to make us feel guilty for being what we are and its done by people who wants to have power over the rest of us by making themselves the conduit to that idiotic notion of "forgiveness of sin"...its nothing more than a snake oil sales pitch thats been going on for 1700 years and if you ask me,thats 1700 years too many."
You are, obviously, a non-believer in God and the Bible. In the Bible, Paul said that to a non-believer what we followers of Christ believe would be nonsense.
The Bible says, and I believe, that humans did have sin after Adam and Eve when they broke their bonds with God and ever since we humans have been trying ways to get back into God's good graces. So, along comes Jesus, who the Bible predicted centuries before his birth, and begins to espouse love as the way, through him, back to God.
posted on 06.03.2007 1:24 PMIt works for me. BUT, if you don't believe no amount of clever writing will do it for you. But let me tell you something; everytime down through history a Christian did some horrendous action -even now look at a Christian President taking us into Iraq and has our nation torturing other humans- everytime this has happened it was a failing, once again and proving the Bible correct, not of God or of the Bible but of human beings. What you cite as history is right, but it proves the sinfulness and thus the need for redemption somehow. God has provided the way with Jesus The Christ using the power and love of the Holy Spirit.
Love
David Perkins
25
To Ludwig
I wrote:
[wrf3] Once again, you're caught in an inability to rationally describe why what is either ought or ought not to be.
thats somethign we do case by case buddy.
That answers what, but not why, which is what I actually asked. It appears that you are a pragmatic hedonist; but even if so, you still have to show why this is more moral than any other system.
[wrf3] "We are designed by God for a purpose. That purpose does not include homosexuality, any more than it includes obesity, or predatory behavior."
I submit to you that if that purpose was not served by obesity,homosexuality or predatory behaviour,none of those things would exist....
This is vacuous since it assumes that existence requires purpose. From an atheistic viewpoint, what is the purpose of the universe? There can't be any yet it exists. Too, whose purpose?
[wrf3] "Because what we do is a reflection of what we are, and God cares deeply about what we are. As C. S. Lewis so succinctly put it: There are only two types of people. Those who, in the end, say "My will be done" and those who say "Thy will be done.""
And since you have not demonstrated to me in any way how you would even know if God exists,
More atheistic illogic. If you're hardwired for worship, yet you do not acknowledge the existence of God, it's clear that you are defective. You're blind to something that the rest can see and deaf to what others can hear. When you tell me what can overcome your defect then I'll demonstrate how to know if God exists.
let alone thats its the God of the king james version of the bible,
What's this infatuation with the KJV? I prefer reading the Greek and wish I had the time to learn Hebrew.
let alone what its will may or may not be,i ll continue to proceed under the very wise and rational assumption that you are merely interjecting YOUR will and calling it God's.
I used to be an atheist. I know it isn't my will.
posted on 06.03.2007 2:23 PM26
Drew
Ludwig, do you suppose it's impossible for someone to disagree with another's lifestyle and still show them genuine compassion? Pretty sad thought.
Actually this is the sort of thing that annoys a lot of people with good reason. Homosexuals have told us and there's good evidence to support it that homosexuality is not a 'lifestyle' anymore than heterosexuality is. I am heterosexual but that is not my 'lifestyle' it is part of who I am. Like other heterosexuals the range of possible lifestyles between different individuals and even within a single lifetime is huge. If I became a chaste monk I would still be a heterosexual just as if I became some type of gaudy swinger like out of an Austin Powers movie.
Imagine if an atheist kept telling you that he had compassion for your 'mental illness' called Christianity. After X number of times explaining to him that your religion is not a mental illness but a set of beliefs that he can disagree with but shouldn't label an illness wouldn't you start to think that maybe he doesn't really have any compassion for you and that his 'compassion' is more of a show to try to impress others than something real?
posted on 06.03.2007 2:38 PM27
Ludwig writes: I use the golden rule as a guide on how to act towards others...you know,the one that was articulated by a chinese bureaucrat 1000 years before christians at the council of Nicea falsely attributed it to their Jesus....
Your history is as bad as your philosophy. "Love your neighbor as yourself" pre-dates Christianity. Yet another straw issue.
treat others as you would have them treat you. I try to apply it to every situation...its not always easy but as i said before,nothing worthwhile ever is. If thats what you consider to be a defective moral center,
What I think is quit different from what you can prove. All you've done is stated what. You haven't said why. Why is "the golden rule" a better moral system than "survival of the fittest", or "take what you can, give nothing back", or "enlighted self interest", or "pragmatic hedonism", or "situational ethics", or "follow the dictates of my wiring unless exceptions require otherwise", ...?
you obviously do not possess the intelect required to pass judgement my character.
I'm passing judgement on the shallowness with which you've examined the implications of your worldview, the illogic you've used in your arguments, and the straw arguments you keep making.
Good grief, when asked if you would impose your moral values on someone else you replied, depends on the situation.. If there are situations where you can impose your system on others, then there are situations where others can impose their system on you. And since you can't logically articulate why one system of morality is more moral than another, you remove all grounds for complaint when this happens to you. Yet you complain, anyway. How irrational can you be?
posted on 06.03.2007 3:32 PM28
"In your cosmology, in other words, humans are no different than animals... there is nothing that sets us apart from animals."
we are animals...its a biological fact. what sets us apart from other animals is what sets lions,dogs,cats,possums,ect apart from other animals...namely the characteristics which are unique to us....in our case,higher brain functions.
"It is a well established assertion only. Assertion differs from fact, and while you might not question it, there are plenty of us who do."
Homosexuality has been observed in humans and other animals...that makes it a fact...are you disputing that some humans are homosexuals or that some specimen of other animal species are as well?
"If you've already decided what answers you will accept, why bother asking the questions?"
I will accept answers that dont require blind faith.
"It's hardly a broader note when you insist on setting parameters for the answer that through some slim possibility might satisfy you."
posted on 06.03.2007 4:44 PMwe all place parameters on the answer we will accept...in your case its "whatever the bable says is true"...in my case it "whatever is supported by the available evidence,be it physical or logical,or at least not contradicted by it"
29
"You are, obviously, a non-believer in God and the Bible. In the Bible, Paul said that to a non-believer what we followers of Christ believe would be nonsense."
That also works well when you replace non-believers with SANE and followers of christ with INSANE
As for Adam and Eve,regardless of the fact that there isent a shred of evicence that they ever existed to begin with,its also one of the most misunderstood story of the bible. Its not at all meant to represent a fall from grace but rather a loss of inocence...an allegory of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Thats what the bible is...a set of human made allegories and an easily recognizable one at that...everything in the bible acts and thinks like a human would,including God without a single exception. There is nothing in the bible that cant be the direct result of human imagination...you can chalk it all up to the "made in God's image" mantra but i d say its rather obvious that its actually the other way around.
posted on 06.03.2007 5:15 PM30
"That answers what, but not why, which is what I actually asked. It appears that you are a pragmatic hedonist; but even if so, you still have to show why this is more moral than any other system."
because it works for me.
"This is vacuous since it assumes that existence requires purpose. From an atheistic viewpoint, what is the purpose of the universe? There can't be any yet it exists. Too, whose purpose?"
you are right...i was merely using your words to make a point but it was a bad choice of words because as you said,it assumes a purpose to the universe and i dont believe we have enough information to make such an assumption.
"More atheistic illogic. If you're hardwired for worship, yet you do not acknowledge the existence of God, it's clear that you are defective. You're blind to something that the rest can see and deaf to what others can hear. When you tell me what can overcome your defect then I'll demonstrate how to know if God exists."
There we go again...back to the "only believers can believe" circular argument. For the record,worship is an incorrect term to describe what we are hardwired to do. We are social animals and as such we tend to follow whatever we perceive to be more powerfull then we are,either because its stronger,or more experienced or possessing something that we need or want. So it stands to reason that if we believe theres some all powerfull entity out there,we'll tend to follow it wherever we believe it will lead...which,as far as i know,is exactly what i m doing now i guess.
"I used to be an atheist. I know it isn't my will."
posted on 06.03.2007 6:05 PMhow do you know?
31
Let me jump into this mix for a moment:
What I think is quit different from what you can prove. All you've done is stated what. You haven't said why. Why is "the golden rule" a better moral system than "survival of the fittest", or "take what you can, give nothing back", or "enlighted self interest", or "pragmatic hedonism", or "situational ethics", or "follow the dictates of my wiring unless exceptions require otherwise", ...?
I think morality is both subjective and universal. Previously I explained this by using taste as an analogy.
Taste is subjective. I put salt on your tounge or sugar you taste saltiness or sweetness. This sensation is purely subjective. You can describe what that tastes like but there's no way you can really explain it. There are 5 types of taste that our tastebuds can detect and every type of food you can imagine is made by combinations of those 5 types of perception. Taste itself is subjective but it is also universal. You cannot describe what sweetness really is to some alien who has a different type of tasting system than humans but every human can experience sweetness (perhaps there are some who can't because they have some type of defect but you get the idea). To taste sweetness, therefore, is subjective and universally human.
At its most fundamental level morality is like this too. I believe we all have a sense of what is moral and this is innate to us as humans. When you ask why not use 'survival of the fittest', or 'take what you can' etc. the fact is we don't use those systems because they don't fit our human nature. Doing so would be like trying to force yourself to eat something that is simply not human food. It can be done but only by going against your nature.
Something else I believe is the notion of karma. By this I don't mean the New Agey idea that if you help an old lady accross the street today you'll get that promotion tomorrow or in your next life you'll get to be Donald Trump rather than some schmoo in a mailroom. I mean the notion of cause and effect. If you do something immoral the effect on you personally happens immediately.
Now yes some people seem to get away with immoral behavior but that is simply because you are not really looking. You are equating effect with a person's bank account or whether a person ends up in jail or not. (And more often than not it doesn't work in that way either, I've noticed that small business guys who take a "screw the customer, I'm in it for a quick buck" POV often never make it beyond the small scale) My favorite example here is OJ. I believe in the conventional way of speaking he 'got away with murder'. But in reality no one gets away with anything. When he acted on his anger and killed two people rather than walking away he lost (or I might say corrupted) part of what makes him human and I think he has been suffering for it since. I think most here would agree his strange behavior after 'getting away with it' indicates someone going thru their own self-made hell rather than someone really enjoying life.
OJ's a good example because he graphically illustrates the idea but I think it applies everywhere. Just like OJ when someone does something wrong the impact on their humanity is immediate. It's not unlike inhaling asbestos or eating unhealthy food. The impact on your body is there as a result. Maybe your lungs will shut down in 30 years or 5 or even never but the damage happens the moment you inhale.
we are animals...its a biological fact. what sets us apart from other animals is what sets lions,dogs,cats,possums,ect apart from other animals...namely the characteristics which are unique to us....in our case,higher brain functions.
I would differ here. Other animals have their own morality. Lobsters can butcher each other all day long and it seems to work for them. That's no different than learning a dog's stomach can digest things that would make you sick. But fundamentally we have the morality we do for the same reason we have the type of taste buds that we do, because we are human.
Now the question on top was why choose this morality. The answer is no reason. You are free to try something else just as much as you're free to try eating rotten food like a scavenger. The results will be that you will damage your humanness. You're free to do that but you're not free to live apart from the consequences of it.
You can try to say morality for humans is relative but I don't think so. Our taste buds are not relative. Everyone tastes sugar, everyone tastes salt. Different cultures just use different combinations in their dishes but they are the same fundamental tastes. Of all people I happened to pick up & read a bit of CS Lewis's Mere Christianity at the bookstore today and right at the beginning he basically says the same thing. In short he asked can you really imagine a human society with a different morality? A country that valued running from battle, betraying your family, cheating your friends? You can't and even if you could you couldn't find any real life example anymore than you could find a human culture where battery acid was their main source of food.
Where I probably differ from most here is that this isn't evidence of the supernatural imo. This is entirely natural. In fact it's as natural and as obvious as gravity.
posted on 06.03.2007 6:46 PM32
I asked Ludwig:
[wrf3] "That answers what, but not why, which is what I actually asked. It appears that you are a pragmatic hedonist; but even if so, you still have to show why this is more moral than any other system."
because it works for me.
So this makes you the arbiter of deciding which competing moral systems is better (i.e. "more moral"). Are you sure you really want to say this?
[wrf3] "More atheistic illogic. If you're hardwired for worship, yet you do not acknowledge the existence of God, it's clear that you are defective. You're blind to something that the rest can see and deaf to what others can hear. When you tell me what can overcome your defect then I'll demonstrate how to know if God exists."
There we go again...back to the "only believers can believe" circular argument.
Come again? If I said, "Only those who are not blind can see", would you say that this is a circular argument? Or is it a basic definition? Futhermore, I did not say "only believers can believe." I said, in essence, "only those who are capable of belief can believe".
You asked me to demonstrate to you how to know God's existence. Let me use an analogy. A person blind from birth comes to you and says, "what are these rainbow things I keep hearing about? Convince me they exist!" There are only two things you can do. You can ask him to trust you and take your word for it. Or you can heal his blindness and let him see for himself. I can't heal your God-blindedness. So my only option is for you to trust me. What would that take?
For the record,worship is an incorrect term to describe what we are hardwired to do.
That's not how some scientists describe it.
We are social animals and as such we tend to follow whatever we perceive to be more powerfull then we are,either because its stronger,or more experienced or possessing something that we need or want. So it stands to reason that if we believe theres some all powerfull entity out there,we'll tend to follow it wherever we believe it will lead...which,as far as i know,is exactly what i m doing now i guess.
I'm not sure I understand you here. What is it that you are following?
[wrf3] "I used to be an atheist. I know it isn't my will."
how do you know?
posted on 06.03.2007 7:55 PMThe same way you do when you have a conflict of will between a boss, a spouse, a parent, or a child.
33
"So this makes you the arbiter of deciding which competing moral systems is better (i.e. "more moral"). Are you sure you really want to say this?"
it makes me the sole arbiter of what is moral for me and how i will react to specific situation....as an exemple,if i came across you while you were beating up your children ,my moral center would compell me to try and stop you,even though it may be your moral beliefs,as stipulated by your bible,that your children are your property to dispose of as you please whereas i believe that our children are not our property but rather our responsability and as such,if i could,i would impose my morality on you. weather i m right or wrong in doing so is for anyone to decide for themselves,each according to their conscience.
"You asked me to demonstrate to you how to know God's existence. Let me use an analogy. A person blind from birth comes to you and says, "what are these rainbow things I keep hearing about? Convince me they exist!" There are only two things you can do. You can ask him to trust you and take your word for it. Or you can heal his blindness and let him see for himself. I can't heal your God-blindedness. So my only option is for you to trust me. What would that take?"
But your analogy proceeds under the tenuous assumption that there is something to be seen and thats i m somehow unequipped to see it...thats certainly a possibility but heres another...thats thers nothing to be seen and youre just imagining it. or another even more disturbing (to you at least)...that we are both completely WRONG...namely that there is something to be seen but its not what either of us ever imagined it could be. Thats the problem when one is dealing in ethereal concepts...since they cannot be verified,they can be made into whatever you want them to be. And that makes for a very poor guide for dealing with a reality that is pretty much never how we want it to be.
"I'm not sure I understand you here. What is it that you are following?"
posted on 06.03.2007 8:30 PMmy feelings,my instinct,my ability to reason,my experience in the world,my perception of it,my dreams,my goals,my needs. From my perspective,even if there is some all powerfull being out there that created all of this,its allready given me everything i need to successfully negociate this life and to determine for myself what its purpose will be. no further astral input required.
34
I asked Ludwig:
[ wrf3] "So this makes you the arbiter of deciding which competing moral systems is better (i.e. "more moral"). Are you sure you really want to say this?"
it makes me the sole arbiter of what is moral for me
Well, yes, that's not under dispute. The problem is who gets to decide when "what is moral for you" is in conflict with someone else and on whose moral grounds the decision is made.
and how i will react to specific situation....as an exemple,if i came across you while you were beating up your children ,my moral center would compell me to try and stop you,even though it may be your moral beliefs,as stipulated by your bible,that your children are your property to dispose of as you please whereas i believe that our children are not our property but rather our responsability and as such,if i could,i would impose my morality on you. weather i m right or wrong in doing so is for anyone to decide for themselves,each according to their conscience.
So when a majority decides to put a minority to the sword, you've just given them permission to do so. If it is ok for you to impose your morality on me, it's ok for someone else to impose their morality on you, even if their morality means that you must be put to death.
Any way you slice it, that's the logical conclusion of your premises.
[wrf3] "You asked me to demonstrate to you how to know God's existence. Let me use an analogy. A person blind from birth comes to you and says, "what are these rainbow things I keep hearing about? Convince me they exist!" There are only two things you can do. You can ask him to trust you and take your word for it. Or you can heal his blindness and let him see for himself. I can't heal your God-blindedness. So my only option is for you to trust me. What would that take?"
But your analogy proceeds under the tenuous assumption that there is something to be seen and thats i m somehow unequipped to see it...thats certainly a possibility
That's a tenuous assumption for you, not for me. And since you're asking me to demonstrate the truth of my worldview, you have to actually answer my question.
but heres another...thats thers nothing to be seen and youre just imagining it.
It's possible, but having been on both sides of the fence, I certainly don't think so.
or another even more disturbing (to you at least)...that we are both completely WRONG
Why do you think this would be disturbing to me? Do you think that I haven't considered this? Another straw issue.
...namely that there is something to be seen but its not what either of us ever imagined it could be. Thats the problem when one is dealing in ethereal concepts...since they cannot be verified,they can be made into whatever you want them to be.
Again, you're assuming you're argument. If atheism is true then of course they cannot be verified -- by definition. If you want to switch from atheism to agnosticism then that's a different issue.
[wrf3] "I'm not sure I understand you here. What is it that you are following?"
my feelings,my instinct,my ability to reason,my experience in the world,my perception of it,my dreams,my goals,my needs.
You're following yourself. Just wanted to be sure; the prefatory talk about an "all powerful entity" made your paragraph a bit hard to parse.
From my perspective,even if there is some all powerfull being out there that created all of this,its allready given me everything i need to successfully negociate this life and to determine for myself what its purpose will be. no further astral input required.
That's called "Deism". It's really quite discredited in philosophical circles these days. Doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.
posted on 06.03.2007 9:41 PM35
Boonton and Ludwig -- down for the night (US, Eastern Daylight Time). Until tomorrow...
posted on 06.03.2007 9:45 PM36
"So when a majority decides to put a minority to the sword, you've just given them permission to do so. If it is ok for you to impose your morality on me, it's ok for someone else to impose their morality on you, even if their morality means that you must be put to death."
I have no permission to give anyone and the majority certainly does not need my approval to do anything it wants...if i disagree with their decision,i ll oppose them in whatever capacity is mine to command...what would determine who's "right" and who's "wrong" is the specific of the situation and even that is subject to personal interpretation. Look i never said that my perspective was objective...i m saying NEITHER IS YOURS...neither is anyone's. As i said,we make decisions based mostly on our feelings...you may say you are following the moral code enacted by the bible which you claim was inspired by God but thats merely because of how you feel about it so what would make your perspective "truer" then mine?
"That's a tenuous assumption for you, not for me. And since you're asking me to demonstrate the truth of my worldview, you have to actually answer my question."
There is no answer that i can give that would satisfy you since it is obvious,to me at least, that we are operating according to very different sets of parameters...you re saying i m blind,and i m saying you have hallucinations...neither of us can prove it to the other so where the middle ground where we could possibly meet?
"It's possible, but having been on both sides of the fence, I certainly don't think so."
and the fact that you seem to believe that there's just 2 sides to this question maybe be where the entire problem lies...looks like we re making progress here..
"Why do you think this would be disturbing to me? Do you think that I haven't considered this? Another straw issue."
not a straw issue...merely a cheap jibe for which i appologise but tell me...did you dismiss that possibility and why and if not,why not?
"That's called "Deism". It's really quite discredited in philosophical circles these days. Doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny."
posted on 06.03.2007 10:35 PMoh...that one has me puzzled...why doesnt Deism hold up to logical scrutiny?
37
Not having read the book, I won't comment on it. But I can comment on the title "Reaching the left from the right."
posted on 06.03.2007 11:24 PMYou can't reach the left from the right!
You can reach the left from the heart. You can reach the left from the brain. You can reach the left with compassion. You can reach the left with love and peace. You can reach the left from logic. But you'll never reach the left from the right, just because no conservative thinks, feels and believes like someone on the left. I have never in my life met a conservative -and I've met quite a few- who understood liberalism. I have met many liberals who understand conservatism, however. That this woman was on the left and is now on the right tells me she was always inclined towards the right. Just having a good time as a kid and now I suppose she feels the responsible thing to do is be on the right.
Of course, my opinion is, she couldn't be further from the truth. But that's just one liberal's opinion.
Love
David
38
David, you said "I have never in my life met a conservative -and I've met quite a few- who understood liberalism."
I'm really curious about that. We don't understand the way liberals think? or why they think that way? or what?
Can you explain liberalism to us in a way we can understand it?
I'd honestly like to know why you think a conservative can't understand liberalism.
posted on 06.04.2007 11:48 AM39
I'll jump in here.
While not true of all conservatives, right-wing authoritarian conservatives can not understand Liberalism in the sense that they can't not work with anyone who does'nt hold their viewpoints. People with differing views are enemies and are demonized.
For example for followers of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et. al., "liberal" is the worst thing you can call anyone. The idea they push is Liberals hate america, liberals won't stand up and fight for american values, liberals hate God, and so forth. However, if you think about it American values are liberal (tolerance and concern for the common good). America would be a starkly different place and almost unbearable place to live, where it not for "liberals"-atleast for the common working man/middle class-the neo-con elites would do just fine....
posted on 06.04.2007 12:17 PM40
JohnW
you are talking about rhetoric, and not actual differences in political philosophy. You begin to touch on philosophy here:
however, it assumes that conservatives do not care about the common good; and that they do not believe in tolerance. The fact is - we believe in both. The questions become "what is the best way to promote the common good?" and "what is real tolerance?" - the definition of the last term is far different than it was when "American values" were formed.Very few folks, liberal or conservative, push beyond name-calling and labelling to actually look at what kind of country the United States of the future should be; and then chart a road to get there. Can the country survive with open borders? Can the country survive with the level of greed exhibited by Exxon in the 1st quarter of this year? Can we diminish the humanity of some "images of God"
Nor, do many really base their conversations on what really is best for the common good; and what actions/behaviors/beliefs should be "tolerated" by civil society.
Mostly folks just label, and attack.
The curious liberal vs conservative difference I heard is that liberals rely more on feelings/emotions while conservatives rely more on analysis/results/what works. I dismissed it at the time as a prejorative; but I keep seeing that dichotomy in the liberal vs conservative dialogues I am involved in. Even the two American values you picked - concern for the common good and toleration - are based on feelings/emotions and not on some other basic American values that are more about how to make things run more smoothly and efficiently - amd rewarding ideas that work while discarding those that do not.
I still do not like that dichotomy - it "feels" like a stereotype (my "liberal" emotional response) but it certainly has huge explanative value in the debates I witness (my "conservative" analysis of "facts"). A liberal might come back and say they care about people while conservatives care about things and facts - but that misses the point that solutions that do not work - however humane they seem - do not solve the problem and therefore are far more inhumane in the long run.
posted on 06.04.2007 2:05 PM41
Here's some more concise rhetoric:
1. Conservative react to things that happen. Liberals react to things that happen and try to fix the underlying causes, so they won't happen again.
2. Conservatives are fearful and neeed strong father figures to protect them. Liberals recognize the world is a complex place, respect others and allow people to express themselves freely, and are more nuturing.
posted on 06.04.2007 2:25 PM42
ScottR, I believe you are baiting me but I'll plod on like the forgiving liberal I am (gee, would that be an explanation in itself?)
BTW JohnW is doing a much better job of explaining liberalism than I can.
In the Bible -yes, a liberal quoting the Bible...most liberals are very religious, just not necessarily Christian...perhaps I should say seekers instead of religious...
Anyway, God asks Cain where his brother Abel is and Cain replies "I don't know. Am I my brother's keeper?"
Now, a great division between conservatives and liberals is that most liberals believe we ARE our brothers keeper, thus the tolerance and desire for helping one another by every means available, including governmental (I.E. the public.)
I've never met a conservative who understood liberalism to be thus grounded.
A conservative, generally speaking...as all of these statements are general...believes in smaller government, more individual freedom of action, personal responsibility. All of these goals are laudable. On many occassions I have said that it takes both the liberal AND the conservative political philosophy to run a successful American government. I've never met a conservative who agrees with this. All conservatives (that I have met) believe that conservatism, in and of itself, is sufficient to run our government.
If you want to understand liberalism, understand why a Kennedy, with all their personal wealth, would go into public service. Understand why a white American male, with almost all the power in the world, would want to share that power with black people, brown people, red people, yellow people, female people, children people, seals, whales, tigers, and any other "brother" who is needed keeping. Liberalism also understands conservatism enough to get out a persons way who does not need helping and to keep taxes low to ensure efficient government.
But a libeal will ALWAYS welcome good government over efficient government. Tell me a conservative who understands the difference.
When arguing politics I personally search for the BEST conservative argument and try to beat that argument with my liberal philosophy. Contrarilly, a conservative will search for the WORST liberal argument and try to beat that argument with a conservative philosophy. I've seen it happen too many times with too many different conservatives and now I believe it's just a conservative trait.
I've rambled on too much. Believe it or not, I look at Jesus in the New Testament and read his sermon on the mount and think nothing but liberalism.
There has to be some voice, however, in the conservative movement that recognizes your lack, not just lack of popularity, indeed your brand of politics may very well be more popular...but never populist...but lack of true morality. I say this because look at the relative success of the phony, get out the vote phase "compassionate conservatism" invented to have the conservative christian vote for Bush with a clear conscience.
If all we are talking about is the proper, or better, path to the public good, we would find common ground. But conservatives don't understand the liberal public good...indeed as JohnW has pointed out, many many conservatives consider liberalism dangerous and something to be eradicated... thus the search for a common path will always fail.
I can't explain liberalism any more than a preacher can explain "Am I my brothers keeper?" to a success driven, money loving, corporate junkie.
It's been said that the best form of government is a "Benign dictatorship." If that's true, conservatives have left out the "benign" as irrelavent. And that's why I believe a conservative will never understand liberalism.
Love
posted on 06.04.2007 4:03 PMDavid
43
In the Bible -yes, a liberal quoting the Bible...most liberals are very religious, just not necessarily Christian...perhaps I should say seekers instead of religious...
I think it strains credibility to try to graft the labels of 'liberal' and 'conservative' on Biblical characters. These are conflicting political philosophies that developed in the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries in advanced industrial economies.
These philosophies were in response to the industrial evolution that for the first time brought about large scale change in societies structure quickly & created a huge increase in the power and role of both gov't and corporations/businesses. I don't think it's very relevant to try to retrospectively sort all the history that came before that point as 'liberal versus conservative'.
posted on 06.04.2007 4:30 PM44
Since this is an evangelical blog, let me get even more concise. There is a even deeper problem than the liberal conservative divide-the majority American Christians seem to be Constantinian Christians like the Laodiceans in Revelation Chapter 3. We love the comfort and security we have and we can't see what is going on in the rest of the world. An we certainly don’t want to speak out against the status quo. Our evangelical churches stress believing that we are sinners and we must accept Christ as our Lord and Savior over recognizing and speaking out against injustice. Yes, Jesus Saves Us, but how does he want us to treat our fellow human beings after we are saved? If Jesus changes our hearts, how does this change our actions?
3 Million refugees in Iraq, countless thousands of needless deaths and injuries, children torn from their families, yet what do we get in our churches? If anything is every said at all, it’s something like “God bless the troops and bring them home safely…and help the Iraqis appreciate the gift of democracy we are bring them…”
posted on 06.04.2007 4:51 PM45
David,
This wasn't all a reference to Kennedy I hope:
because, if it is, I think it is playing way loose with history. It also ignores that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed because a conservtive, Dirksen, brought enough Republicans on board to counterbalance the southern Democrats. It ignores the Bay of Pigs and the content of Kennedy's great "Ask not" acceptance speech - a call to Cold War and the destruction of communism. It ignores who overthrew Diem in Vietnam, who sent in the first Green Berets - and who sent the first US troops into Laos. All Kennedy.If you were not talking about Kennedy, then what "white male" are you talking about that has "all the power in the world" to share with whales. The racism and intolerance exhibited in that paragraph show that at least one liberal, you, has a great deal in common with all of those intolerant conservatives.
The vast majority of white folks, male or not, have exactly the power DuBois talked about in Black Reconstruction - no real power whatsoever.
For us to have a conversation about power, its use (and abuse) we would have to agree on what power is - and certainly your definition in that paragraph aligns with nothing I understand.
posted on 06.04.2007 9:21 PM46
Boonton, you are quite correct in talking about conservative and liberal Christian divisions. I counter-balance the heavily conservative swing in modern Christianity. I believe as you do that labels are not and should not be found in the Bible. But as long as I'm being beaten over the head by conservatives saying things like I can't preach the Gospel because I'm liberal, then I have to, as a liberal (mostly...you'd be surprised how many conservatives ideals I like) speak up and defend what I belive!
And fleetguy, the mention of Kennedy was meant to be symbolic in any person with great wealth devoting themselves to service to others rather than the prevailing conservative feelings of the more the wealth one has the more one has to be serviced to.
As to the white male, I am he. And that too is symbolic as any one in the established power group offering support to those not in that group. I included our animals and our environment as things we must, with our power, protect, rather than exploit for further monetary enrichment.
JohnW.
You are saying what I have thought on many occassions, that America is the Loadicean church. But as I preached last week, we Christians are now God's remnants so we will be isolated, set apart no matter where we are. This is as true in, say, Hungary as it is here. Since we have so much material wealth here the division (or perhaps the temptation) is greater.
posted on 06.05.2007 10:20 AMLove
David
47
David, thanks for your reply. I was not baiting you. I appreciate your time. I'll be honest and say I don't really have time right now to digest all you have said so I can't give you a well thought out response and I apologize for that.
I would say quickly, that just becuase conservatives disagree with what liberals are saying/believing does not necessarily mean that they do not understand it.
At any rate, I hope you will keep reading the Bible and keep seeking God. Ultimately, our political views are pretty irrelevant. Only what we do with Christ will matter at the end of time.
Peace,
posted on 06.05.2007 10:34 AMScott