Skip to main content

View Diary: The Ongoing War on Christianity (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Christian" is not synonymous with "moral" (19+ / 0-)

    Despite the attempts of so many who use their religion as a calling card for their sense of moral superiorty.  

    A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a facist state - Margaret Cho

    by CPT Doom on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:34:39 AM PDT

    •  Remember the moral majority? n/t (4+ / 0-)

      The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

      by nupstateny on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:07:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some non Christians could learn that too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chi, Paul1a
      •  Sure (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fisheye, Chi

        However, the category that includes "non belief"  can make no specific claims to having a monopoly on morality.  

        Christianity makes specific claims as to it being the truth of morality.  Not only Chrstianity, but all religions seem to believe that they have the one enduring moral truth.  

        We are as moral as we are.  The fluctuation in ideas that are considered morally acceptable is a good indication that morals are not a static, absolute notion.  

        Instead, morals are things that change with our changing understanding of how the world works.  

        I was thinking about how future stories frequently leave out this component.  They assume that the current state of moral understanding is exactly how the morals of the future will be.

        Oftentimes, the horror in the future story is the display of the horrific outcome of a fundamentally different set of morals, and that's supposed to be the lessons of those.  Brave New World, for instance.  The morals in that story are completely at odds with some of our morals today, but who is to say that the vast majority of people in a future world would be against those morals?

        If our morals once included slavery, and now they don't, and now we find that concept reprehensible, then why don't we just assume that we will also change our moral understandings at some future point?


        by otto on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:53:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't entirely agree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and, btw, I find it hard to converse in terms of Christianity making claims. There's multiple forms of Christianity with contradicting claims. I would say about 2.18 billion. But that's just me being a realist.

          The Catholic Church is not in the least the most morally conservative (clinging to static morality). But the most prominent. Certainly certain Jews Muslims and any religion or ideology has it's strict constructionists.

          Clearly even as conservative as the Catholic Church seems to be in clinging to outdated morality on particular issues. It does not have a 'static' history. And the drive for progressive as well as regressive moral advancement has created rifts in the umbrella of Christian religions.

          But Christianity in general claims that one true God has a monopoly on morals, not people. That there's one true morality, that exists beyond our grasp as humans or the conception of an individual.

          That is neither static or changing. It's simply something for humans to aspire too, with Jesus as the guide.

    •  That is a door that swings both ways (0+ / 0-)

      There are plenty who use their eschewing of Christianity as a calling card for their sense of moral and intellectual superiority...

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 11:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site