This forum has been archived. Please visit the new forum at https://community.narniaweb.com/

Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

The community lounge for non-Narnian discussions.

Moderators: stargazer, johobbit

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Andrew » Jul 21, 2010 2:50 pm

Puddleglum wrote:If moral relativism works, as you have asked about the situation determining the morals, where does it end?
Where do we say it has gone too far?
Eugenics, as fencer has said is about control. Please google Margaret Sanger. She was the founder of what we call Planned Parenthood today. The stated goal of her movement was eugenics, that is the control, or elimination of "undesirables". Whether defined by race, or mental, or physical health.
We have only to look at Nazi germany to show us the result of such thinking. So please use caution.


Situation doesn't determine morality; morals are a figment of the imagination. Too far is an opinion.

Margaret Sanger wanted to emliminate blacks from the population, not because of eugenics but because of racism. If you study her life, she had been promoting birth control among black people long before she travelled to Europe and learned about eugenics, which she worked under the guise of to promote her goal without making everyone hate her.

We've already spent pages in here talking about Nazis, I think my last post sums it all up very well. You all have said nothing against eugenics, only those who have used it for their own means. I am talking about the actual science of eugenics, and what it can do.
5.9.2011 the day Christ saved me!

Image

Thank you Lady Faith for the sig!
User avatar
Andrew
NarniaWeb Nut
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby waggawerewolf27 » Jul 21, 2010 2:51 pm

Fencer for Jesus wrote:Fifty years ago, stds were not known save for a few, and now they have multiplied so far have fun just trying to count them.


Actually, apart from HIV and AIDS there were just as many STDs around. They were called something different fifty years ago, sex education was minimal, people didn't know as much about diseases in general, and when people got such diseases they tended to cover it up a lot more, rather than going for help.

You've heard of smallpox? What is the Great Pox? Yes, it was what we now call Syphilis, rampant in Europe up until the discovery of America, and beyond. Tuberculosis, shortened to TB, used to be called Consumption, and is still around in poorer districts and countries, in antibiotic-resistant forms. Old diseases, considered conquered, or not insurmountable, can still stage a comeback if people don't want to change their behaviour, as well as trusting in God or medicine or both. We all know that smoking can lead to lung cancer and other disorders, but people not only continue to smoke they dabble with other more dangerous addictive substances.
User avatar
waggawerewolf27
NarniaWeb Zealot
 
Posts: 8781
Joined: Sep 25, 2009
Location: Oz
Gender: Female

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby stardf29 » Jul 21, 2010 4:07 pm

Andrew wrote:Which is only part of the cycle, of course more diseases (or mutations of existing diseases) appear every year, which is why we can get the common cold so many times in one life. But all of these eventually become treatable.


You're kind of dodging the point.

You're trying to say that a certain Biblical moral is "out of date" because it supposedly protects against diseases that eventually we won't have to worry about because they will eventually be treatable.

However, you ignore the fact that the continual appearance of new diseases or mutations may continue to be a reason to follow such a moral if it protects against them too. (Hint: AIDS did not exist amongst the human population back in Biblical times.)

And while doctors might be able to find a cure or treatment for these diseases, how long will it take? If the disease is lethal, can the cure or treatment be found before the contractor dies? If the disease is easily transmittable, can it be contained before it spreads to everywhere in the world (besides Madagascar)?

And all things considered, does any of this matter to the person who has to decide whether or not she wants to risk contracting AIDS from someone, when the fact of the matter is, there is no cure right now and might not be in her lifetime?

Your argument doesn't work here, I'm afraid.
"A Series of Miracles", a blog about faith and anime.

Avatar: Kojiro Sasahara of Nichijou.
User avatar
stardf29
Moderator Emeritus
I'm on a goat.
 
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mar 11, 2005
Location: Waiting for you at our secret base...
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby FencerforJesus » Jul 21, 2010 5:59 pm

Andrew wrote:
Fencer wrote:eugenics does not cure anything, in spite of what it claims to be able to do. I've already told you that the proponents of eugenics are not really after the bettering of society, but rather the control of it. And as I have told you, your answer to curing the mental issues, let alone physical ones, would have me killed and I imagine quite a few others on this forum. What about people like Stephen Hawking (whom I highly disagree with his worldview) who have superb mental abilities but no physical abilities. Do they go too? Eugenics will never solve the issue but instead give a particular group power they should not have.


Your claim is no different than me saying that all Christians are evil control freaks because of those who ran the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. I could even expand this larger and say that all religious people are that way. As you may know, the peace sign is a cross that is broken - why? Because the cross has caused most of the largest wars in history, as well as many other religions. Sure, some proponents of eugenics are going to do that, just as some religious proponents will do so. But not all.


There is a big difference between what I am saying about eugenics root motive and Christians who did bad things. Eugenics at its root is about control. Determining who is the weaker races, weaker peoples, and eliminating them. Christianity at its root is anything but. Christianity at its root is about serving the least in the world's views. Were the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, and those of the like pursuing control? Absolutely. Where they right to do so? Where they actually following the beliefs they taught? Absolutely not. Yes, Christianity is full of hypocrites, and truth be told, the most difficult life to live consistantly is that of a Christian.

As for the peace sign, yes, the cross has caused most of the largest wars in history. But not all of them were started by Christians. Jesus did say that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword that would divide people into different factions. From what you have said, it has happened in your family. There is a clear rift between your Christian parents and yourself. But truth be told, as long as Satan is around, there will always be a war involving Christians. And while Jesus did say 'love your enemies', he did not say 'let them trample over you'. You want to know a more realistic reason why the broken cross was chosen for the symbol of peace? It's because the world wants us Christians to compromise our faith, not to stand up for what we believe to be true, all under the pretense of peace.

Islam and Christianity have been at war for years, ever since Abraham, Ismael and Isaac. To simplify what the Koran teaches, there is only one way to have peace with them: surrender to them and convert to their belief. The Spanish Inquisition and Crusades unfortunately followed this line of thinking as well, but that is not what the Bible teaches. So anyone who does not convert to Islam is considered an enemy and should be treated as such. The Koran also teaches that it is alright to lie to an enemy to keep them off guard. That is why we have Muslims in the US who claim to be peaceful. It is a fasad. The Muslims in the US are also in the minority, but if you look at any country where they are the majority, to be a Christian means your life is at risk. So the peace symbol is not really in response to the atrocities that some Christians have made, but more as a symbol to fight against them.

Andrew wrote:You dislike eugenics because it excludes you (and everyone else alive at this point in time), yet you fail to realize the beauty of it - nobody would have to go through the struggles you've had to, as well as other struggles other people have gone through. It would take our entire race to a whole new level, transcending our current problems. Sure, we'll have new ones, but we will be by all accounts a greater race as a whole.

Of course I personally am not one to run around trying to implement eugenics, mainly because the effects would never be seen in my lifetime and I could care less what happens to the world after I'm gone, but you can't really deny it's mouth-watering benefits without allowing your emotions to control you.


I've made my arguments against eugenics to show you where it would go on a personal level. Now let me tell you where it has gone on a larger scale. Sadaam Hussein practiced eugenics with the Kurds in northern Iraq. He called it eugenics. We called it genocide. Also known as mass murder. It is quite clear. In order to determine which people have the right to live and don't under any type of eugenics, that person must be alive long enough to see what traits are worth keeping or not. And if not, that person must be killed which == MURDER!!!

Would it be better to not have to deal with the struggles that I or others have had to deal with? I must say no. From your comments, I assume you have never spent any quality time with anyone who has a disability. And you have said numerous times that you do not see a purpose in life. So it is easy from that standpoint to come to the conclusion that you have. But it is faulty. I present this case. Another high schooler with Asperger's Syndrome, much like mine or stardf's . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fw1CcxCUgg

Now I have watched baskeball quite a bit, and I don't see pro's shooting like that very often. Having Asperger's the way my muscles learned thier actions is through memorization. I struggled to learn the actions initially, but once I learned it, I could repeat it over and over again. I could be given a basketball, stand at the half-court line, shoot one, miss it bad, shoot another, make it, shoot another, make it, shoot another, make it.... I could do it over and over and over again until my body got tired, because my body knew exactly what it needed to do to make the shot. It is likely similar with this kid.

Your problem is that you see the problems with these people, but you fail to see positives. I have yet to meet a special needs person (and I've met a few) that didn't have some very special gift that 'normal' people couldn't do. I tell you what, without my Asperger's, I would not be as good as video games as I am. And I would not have had ALL the neighborhood kids staring through my window, refusing to want to play with me because of the Asperger's, but with jealousy that I could do the stuff in the games they never could. Where you have not seen the purpose in life, I do. I believe every person was created for a reason, and the ones with no physical or mental abilities have special gifts elsewhere.

Re TBG: as for your comment about not seeing the difference between the soul and the spirit, I do. The soul is the function of emotions. I have yet to find a reference to the soul that wasn't with an emotional context. The spirit is the function of intuition and communication. It is the spirit that communicates with God and with each other, when language does not. It is also the spirit that alters us of things that we percieve or normally should not know. But the spirit is never referred to in an emotional context. And all three of these, body, soul, and spirit, and very intertwined and all affect the other.
Be watching for the release of my spiritual warfare novel under a new title: "Call to Arms" by OakTara Publishing. A sequel (title TBD) will shortly follow.
FencerforJesus
NarniaWeb Zealot
 
Posts: 8912
Joined: May 25, 2005
Location: United States
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Puddleglum » Jul 21, 2010 7:44 pm

Fencer.
I would add to your comment on Christians, and war.
While I will agree that things have been done in Christ's name, you are correct to point out that those acts, contradicting the teachings of Christ, are not representing Him.
But for those who try to blame most, if not all, wars on religion, I would suggest that they study the history of Stalinist Russia, or China under Mao. Millions were killed under the orders of these "godless" leaders.
Puddleglum
NarniaWeb Junkie
 
Posts: 850
Joined: Nov 20, 2009
Location: Minnesota USA
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Andrew » Jul 21, 2010 8:16 pm

Stardf29, if you look at the history of AIDs - no, the reason for abstinence that you have provided - it is an objectivist standpoint. There is no higher moral calling, only objectivist reasons. Also, if you don't want to get these diseases the answer is simple - don't have sex, at least not with anybody who may have diseases. I'm not against abstinence, I'm just saying there's not really legitimate reasons for it.

Fencer wrote:Eugenics at its root is about control.


Not true,

Fencer wrote:It is quite clear. In order to determine which people have the right to live and don't under any type of eugenics, that person must be alive long enough to see what traits are worth keeping or not. And if not, that person must be killed which == MURDER!!!


Also not true. You don't have to kill off the race, just refuse them the ability to breed. Being somewhat Libertarian, I'm not promoting that, it's just an option.

Fencer wrote:From your comments, I assume you have never spent any quality time with anyone who has a disability.


Forgive me a moment of laughter here =))
Of course I'm not blaming you for this mistake, you couldn't have known this: I've lived with one for almost 17 years. My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.


Now, I also believe just about everyone has a talent they're good at. A person with physical or mental problems could be better than a "normal" person at something, but it doesn't mean a "normal" person couldn't be just as good. You're great at video games? That's awesome, I have a friend who's a professional Halo 3 player. Not to demean your abilities or anything, I'm just saying everyone excels at different things, whether "normal" or not. My brother designs and builds some crazy buldings out of K'Nex, stuff I'd never think of, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have been an architect if his other mental abilities weren't so far behind. But such is life, it is what it is, I suppose.
5.9.2011 the day Christ saved me!

Image

Thank you Lady Faith for the sig!
User avatar
Andrew
NarniaWeb Nut
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby stardf29 » Jul 21, 2010 8:24 pm

I'm not sure what you're going for exactly, Andrew; I'm just saying that, even from objectivist standpoints, you have better arguments to use against the Biblical mores of your choice than what you used. :p

That, and I'm not sure what you consider a "legitimate" reason, but I'm pretty sure you know by now that I'm not going to care one bit for whether my reasons are legitimate by your standards. :p


My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.


You know, you're being rather demeaning to six-year-olds.

To say nothing of your brother. I'm sure he could give quite a bit back to society if you (and other people) help him out a bit.

That, and I'm sure there's someone who likes him enough that, for that person, his very presence on Earth is a gift back to society.

Come on, have some faith in him... ;)
"A Series of Miracles", a blog about faith and anime.

Avatar: Kojiro Sasahara of Nichijou.
User avatar
stardf29
Moderator Emeritus
I'm on a goat.
 
Posts: 14353
Joined: Mar 11, 2005
Location: Waiting for you at our secret base...
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby The Black Glove » Jul 21, 2010 8:25 pm

FFJ wrote:The soul is the function of emotions. I have yet to find a reference to the soul that wasn't with an emotional context. The spirit is the function of intuition and communication. It is the spirit that communicates with God and with each other, when language does not. It is also the spirit that alters us of things that we percieve or normally should not know. But the spirit is never referred to in an emotional context.


And where is the intellect, the mind? I see all of these as but aspects of the same immaterial component of the human being that exists in a conditional unity with the body. My emotions are almost inextricably tied up with my physical existence: in many cases they are a response to physical stimulae and trigger physical reactions.

Also, what of the difference between heart and soul? I just keep finding too many terms that seem to be aspects of the same thing, plus I find no really good or necessary deduction from Scripture to a trichotomous view of man. That, coupled with Occam's razor, leads me to reject this view. Even a brief look at usage of the terms in Scripture leads me to conclude that they are used more or less interchangeably.

Andrew wrote:My brother is mentally retarded, a 22 year old with the mind of a 6 year old. Someone who will be accepting your tax money to live on, but will never give back to the society from which he takes.


What exactly do you mean by "give back." There seems to be some sort of value system tied up in your assessment, so I would like to know what it is, where you
get it from, and why we should care (given your nihilism).

For myself, I happen to believe that all humans, being made in the image of God, have an inherent dignity that, though damaged by the fall, is still present, even in ruin. I remember once standing in the ruins of an abbey and admiring it, thinking that even in ruin it was truly magnificent.

TBG
Whereof we speak, thereof we cannot be silent.
If God did not exist, we would be unable to invent Him.
User avatar
The Black Glove
Moderator Emeritus
 
Posts: 6453
Joined: Jun 28, 2005
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Andrew » Jul 21, 2010 9:16 pm

stardf29 wrote:I'm just saying that, even from objectivist standpoints, you have better arguments to use against the Biblical mores of your choice than what you used.


Not necessarily, in fact the reason I do not subscribe to objectivism is the same as why I don't subscribe to any set moralism - it assumes there is some standard by which we all should live. Though I must admit, objectivism does make sense.

TBG wrote:What exactly do you mean by "give back." There seems to be some sort of value system tied up in your assessment, so I would like to know what it is, where you get it from, and why we should care (given your nihilism).


No, as I have said I am not supporting eugenics or anything. However, I do like to find common ground. From just about any value system other than nihilism, you can base a person's value on what they add to society. Look into your own scriptures: "Go to the ant thou sluggard," and "he who does not work will not eat."
5.9.2011 the day Christ saved me!

Image

Thank you Lady Faith for the sig!
User avatar
Andrew
NarniaWeb Nut
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Jun 22, 2010
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Gandalfs Beard » Jul 21, 2010 11:39 pm

There are a lot of things I disagree with Fencer about ;) , but he's right on the mark (mostly) regarding Eugenics :D . It's a means of control--politically, economically, and socially--of population groups, and of favoured population groups' genetic futures.

It wasn't simply discredited because of its connection to Nazism, but because Eugenics was eventually debunked as a bogus science--there is no such thing as a "perfect" or "uniform" Human model. And as others on the forum have already pointed out (including Andrew himself), genetic "disorders" do not necessarily condemn people to live "unfit" or "unproductive" lives.

And it IS inherently a means of control because it is NOT something that can be accomplished through Individual Free Choice. It necessarily requires enforcement by the State, or some other Authoritarian means. Who is supposed to determine what constitutes "unfit"? The Rich? White Supremacists? Allegedly "Rational" Medical Professionals working within the current definitions of their day?

Expecting humans to "advance" to the point "morally" (which is implicitly stated in Andrew's views which are already on record here ;) )wherefore they would (collectively or by a group of "elites") be capable of making such choices perfectly ethically is entirely an unrealistic fantasy.

Now for the part where I disagree with BOTH Puddleglum and Andrew: :p

As far as trotting out Margaret Sanger as the poster child of Eugenics (usually in order to trash the laudable goals of Planned Parenthood); that is also a dead letter.

The fact is, in the 1920's, Eugenics was widely heralded as a breakthrough "science", and endorsed by people across the political spectrum from Left to Right, and there was a wide range of perspectives on what constituted "Eugenics". Sanger opposed the Nazi's "methodology" of mass murder, and mostly endorsed sterilization, birth control, and controlled immigration policies to minimize the reproduction of the "medically unfit" and "feeble-minded" (bad enough in my view, but not in any way equivalent to the Nazis). And if her writings are any indication, she actually dissented from a lot of Eugenicist opinion (for the most part she believed that people should have the freedom of choice regarding reproduction, excepting the "worst" cases of "Medical Unfitness").

She was a complex person who had many laudable goals (including the advancement of women, legalization of birth control, and freedom of speech), and many misguided ones. She believed that birth control should be in the hands of individuals, not the State. She actually opposed the Narniaweb banned topic (hint, it begins with A ;) ).

Accusations of Racism are dubious; quite possibly she harboured racial prejudices as was open and common until the 1970's when it became increasingly "politically incorrect." But "Eugenics" was cross-racial. Kelly Miller was a Eugenicist and one of America's leading black writers in that era.

Margaret Sanger was apparently someone who believed in the betterment of mankind across racial boundaries, and worked with many African Americans. She was heralded by such luminaries as W.E.B. Du Bois, and later Martin Luther King Jr., and the Urban League among other African Americans and their organizations.

Peace and Long Life :ymhug:

GB (%)
"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence" -- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Gandalfs Beard
NarniaWeb Guru
 
Posts: 1842
Joined: Dec 02, 2008
Location: Gandalfs chin
Gender: Male

Re: Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

Postby Shadowlander » Jul 22, 2010 4:49 am

Given that this thread has achieved 100 pages, and that this comes at a time when Doc Ransom is not going to be available to reopen it until after the weekend, it will be locked for the time being. Beginning next week the thread will be opened anew, renewed, and old debates can continue at that time.
Kennel Keeper of Fenris Ulf


Image
User avatar
Shadowlander
Moderator Emeritus
This Space For Rent
 
Posts: 2986
Joined: Nov 30, 2005
Location: Vault 13
Gender: Male

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests