Is it Just Me?

[Mirdath]

"Malcolm McLean:

To say that they had an essentially Christian concept and attitude towards love would be to read their culture through a Christian filter, with a good dollop of political correctness thrown in.

Hindus have proverbs rather than moral rules, for instance. Though the light of truth cannot be entirely extinguished, and ultimately a Hindu might be brought to admit that there are good and evil actions as well as prudent and imprudent, or as the Budhhists have it “skilled and unskilled”, the entire basis of their teaching is different.

It isn’t a Christian concept of love. Nor even are the concepts of philia, eros, and agape often bandied about by Christians – those are, in fact, ancient Greek concepts. But a non-Christian idea of love is by no means necessarily inferior to the Christian idea. Love wasn’t invented by Christians.

I think it is very, very kind of all of you fellow Catholics to bend over backwards to witness to nonbelievers. But as one poster here put it, “Christians are funny,” meaning that they are here to make fun of us, not to share. In such cases, we might want to remember Christ’s admonition to us not to cast our pearls before swine, because the pearls will be trampled into the mud, since swine cannot appreciate the value of the pearls.

I at least am posting here in good (ahem) faith, and I’d like to think everyone else is as well.

Antonius Lupus: the wager and arguments you presented all have some fatally major holes.

First, the wager is unusable as it posits that one particular faith is correct, while from an outside point of view, any of the thousands upon thousands of religions could be ‘right’. It’s the same problem I mentioned earlier with Pascal’s wager. Yours, like Pascal’s, also makes no allowance for your own Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire/invincible ignorance, whereby a virtuous non-Catholic or even non-theist might gain entry to heaven.

Second, the ontological argument (as an aside, I love it and think it’s great fun, it just isn’t sound). Anselm’s first mistake is to assume that existence is necessarily greater than nonexistence. Nor is it true that imagining something to be the apex of any kind of being means it actually exists. Say I’m imagining the perfect calzone right now: I’m sure there are some incredible ones out there (I’ve had at least one in Trastavere), but perfect? It doesn’t necessarily follow.

Third, in your second proof, point #3 simply is not true. It’s no fault of reason to say ‘I don’t know’.

And the question of ‘which faith’ has not, to my knowledge, been satisfactorily answered. Every religion is right by its own fiat; there’s no way for someone outside it to tell objectively which is correct. Were there, it would cease to be true faith.

If your faith requires reason, it isn’t faith.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

non-Christian religions ]

It isn’t a Christian concept of love. Nor even are the concepts of philia, eros, and agape often bandied about by Christians – those are, in fact, ancient Greek concepts. But a non-Christian idea of love is by no means necessarily inferior to the Christian idea. Love wasn’t invented by Christians.

Or in other words, non-Christians have something which has enough in common with Christian love for us to use the same word for it, but it is not quite the same.

Because the gospels were written in Greek, and because modern society often confuses sexual attraction with love, Christians often go back to the Greek terms. In fact, as your example shows, the Greeks did not see any natural or valuable connection between eros, or sexual attraction, and agape or brotherly love. The Japanese likewise have a very pragmatic attitude to sex. Christians and post-Christians see sex divorced from love as something debased.

You could argue that the Christian concept is wrong and the Japanese attitude more realistic or healthier. Post-Christians are beginning to move to a more cynical or utilitarian attitude. When Boy George said "“sex, I’d rather have a cup of tea” he was regarded as saying somethign very right-on and progressive. In fact the Romantic myth of irresistible passionis now only seriously believed in Christian circles.

Similarly, you could argue with Plato that love should only be shown to Greeks or, in our case, whites. Or you could take the line that only some people merit love whilst others are unworthy objects of it. Or you might see charity as futile - in India no doubt it is very easy to believe this. Non-Christians are not necessarily incapable of defending their case. But they do not believe exactly what we beleive.

 

[Mirdath]

Because the gospels were written in Greek, and because modern society often confuses sexual attraction with love, Christians often go back to the Greek terms. In fact, as your example shows, the Greeks did not see any natural or valuable connection between eros, or sexual attraction, and agape or brotherly love.

I’m not aware of where my example shows it; nor do I know whether they actually did make such a connection at times or not. I don’t think it matters, though. Once again, the conflation of lust and love isn’t a new development.

The Japanese likewise have a very pragmatic attitude to sex. Christians and post-Christians see sex divorced from love as something debased.

What’s a ‘post-Christian’? If I’m meant to be one, I don’t see loveless sex so much debased as pointless and to be pitied.

In fact the Romantic myth of irresistible passionis now only seriously believed in Christian circles.

Think again

Non-Christians are not necessarily incapable of defending their case. But they do not believe exactly what we beleive.

I don’t see why they should have to defend their cases specially, while Christians get a free pass. No, they don’t believe exactly as you do – but that in and of itself does not render their concept of love inferior to yours.

 

[john_ennis]

.

I don’t feel empty in side.

Fine, I wouldn’t look for God just so I wouldn’t feel empty inside, either. That would be a pretty selfish reason.

In short “LIFE IS GOOD”!

I agree! Doesn’t it just make you grateful???l!!

Oh… But, uh, to who?

Who needs an impersonal god imposing rules and regulations on the way a person freely chooses to live their own life?

Not me! Show me an impersonal God and I’ll be sure to avoid him!

]

God only crimps your style? It’s a drag

Know what crimps my style? Being a slave to my own impulses and desires. I can’t think of a more absolute slavery. Thanks, God, for giving me a way to be free of it.

God bless you (He does, you know).

Peace.
John

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

What’s a ‘post-Christian’? If I’m meant to be one, I don’t see loveless sex so much debased as pointless and to be pitied.

A post-Christian is someone who grew up in a Western society with either a nominal or non-existent Christian identity, but whose ideas are still profoundly influenced by the Christian past of his culture.

You are included. You use the term “pointless and to be pitied” rather than “debased”, but that is to split hairs.

I don’t see why they should have to defend their cases specially, while Christians get a free pass. No, they don’t believe exactly as you do – but that in and of itself does not render their concept of love inferior to yours.

Non-Christians have different opinions to Christians. That shouldn’t surprise us. You would almost certainly reject Plato’s views on Greeks and non-Greeks and adopt a position closer to the Christian one. But that’s largely because of the historical circumstances you happen to be in, where anti-racism is the official government ideology. In debate with Plato you would be hard pressed to give a logical reason why we are right and he is wrong.

I also believe that Plato was wrong on this issue, and therefore that his concept of love was inferior to mine. I too would have to defend my case.

 

[Mirdath]

A post-Christian is someone who grew up in a Western society with either a nominal or non-existent Christian identity, but whose ideas are still profoundly influenced by the Christian past of his culture.

You are included. You use the term “pointless and to be pitied” rather than “debased”, but that is to split hairs.

Thanks for the clarification. I chose the alternate wording since ‘debased’ connotes evil and sin as well as animal instinct. I don’t think loveless sex is evil, just… not worth it.

Non-Christians have different opinions to Christians. That shouldn’t surprise us. You would almost certainly reject Plato’s views on Greeks and non-Greeks and adopt a position closer to the Christian one. But that’s largely because of the historical circumstances you happen to be in, where anti-racism is the official government ideology. In debate with Plato you would be hard pressed to give a logical reason why we are right and he is wrong.

‘We are all human and thus equally deserving’ sounds pretty straightforward and logical to me…

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Those sorts of platitudes don’t survive much contact with reality. For instance no modern Western country allows unrestricted immigration from the Third World. We don’t beleive in open markets to that extent.

Asians, Arabs and other peoples don’t even pretend to believe in racial equality, excpet when they pay lip service to the idea for Western consumption.

 

[Mirdath]

Those sorts of platitudes don’t survive much contact with reality. For instance no modern Western country allows unrestricted immigration from the Third World. We don’t beleive in open markets to that extent.

No country anywhere, modern or backwards, allows unrestricted immigration of any kind; that may be the case in general, but I don’t fit. It’s a pity we’ve forgotten what’s inscribed on the tablet held by the ginormous statue in our first major port.

Asians, Arabs and other peoples don’t even pretend to believe in racial equality, excpet when they pay lip service to the idea for Western consumption.

Not true. Don’t consider Kim Jong-Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad representative of Asians or Arabs as groups. And even though there are still some crazy racists in Asia and the Middle East just as there are in America, little by little that’s changing, especially in the young.

 

[VociMike]

Are you afraid to die? Do you have any reassurance that when you die you will go to this heaven that Christians talk about? I’m not afraid to die because I believe in reincarnation. Maybe I won’t come back and live as comfortable of a life that I did in this present one but I know I will come back. Nothing in life can really be destroyed. If it rains the rain evaporates and then it rains again. Nothing in life is really destroyed. There isn’t any more matter in the world than when the world began it just naturally recycles itself.

Sorry to burst your bubble:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

 

[Mijoy2]

I think you know what rules and regulations I am talking about. You can’t legislate morality. Besides morality is in the eyes of the beholder. I don’t think I am immoral because I have had sex out side of marriage with multiple partners. Sex doesn’t make me a bad person. The people who think so have dirty minds.

Could you define “dirty mind”? If morality is in the eye of the beholder, how can anything be “dirty”?

 

[freesoulhope]

Could you define “dirty mind”? If morality is in the eye of the beholder, how can anything be “dirty”?

This answers has been making me luagh!. The logic of it is so bueatiful. God bless.

 

[Ignatius]

Why do Catholics need God in their lives? My life is OK without God. I’m not a Christian. I don’t feel empty in side. In short “LIFE IS GOOD”! Who needs an impersonal god imposing rules and regulations on the way a person freely chooses to live their own life? God only crimps your style? It’s a drag.

You’re young yet, give it a while. Also, God is definitely not impersonal, He loves each of us more than any human being can. As a loving Father, he has given us guidance, not imposing rules and regulations. God created the universe and knows what will benefit us and what will harm us and has given us guidance so that, if we follow His guidance, we can avoid what is harmful. If you don’t believe it, just ask Him to show you. Say God, please help me to understand the purpose of my life and show me how much you love me. He will answer and show you.

God bless and watch over you.

Your brother in Christ.