Typical Christians and Their Hypocrisy

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Yeah, you're not making any points here. You cannot claim that a right may be viewed as inherent because you can reason it to be. It can be reasoned not to be, as well. You're attempting to wiggle an absolute within the context of a "no absolutes" philosophy, and that doesn't work.

I never said there are no absolutes, I just think that there are limited absolutes. It's why I take the stance that there are certain inalienable rights which can only be infringed upon in the instance of that individual infringing upon the inalienable rights of another and only in appropriate measure.

There is a reason that the US Declaration of Independence phrases this very carefully:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Where do these fundamental, inalienable rights come from?

John Locke. He also came up with this proposition, which is being deliberately violated by the state I live in:

(1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity

Source (with further citation)

In order for them to be absolute, they must originate from an absolute source. They do not originate from government, society or reason, all of which are manipulative and fickle. This line is phrased the way that it is in order to make the declaration of independence from old King George, because, in the eyes of the colonies, his government was in violation of the rights given to them by God.

Except that the idea of rights originating from a creator being is equally fickle, as it relies upon the whim of the creator and the ludicrous claim that the existence of a creative being somehow bestows inalienable rights upon an individual that would not be present in its absence.

Jefferson wasn't a Christian, but he was very much a Deist. By intention, we have a Constitutional basis for claiming our rights, because they aren't granted by government, and, thus, cannot be taken away by government.

Actually, our rights are derived from philosophy if anywhere at all. The rights defined in the Constitution are negative rights.

Your man of Malta, though, who does not believe in absolutes, does not have his rights violated when the majority disagrees with him, because he can only look to society for his basis.

Again, excluded middle. I can look to moral and political philosophers a plenty who agree with the idea of absolute right deriving from reason rather than from absolute morals provided by deities.

I'm sure that those who support the ban on divorce have reasons for doing so which are not simply "Jesus said no,"

You'd be right. It's because "The priest told me that Jesus said no!"

and if the majority goes along with that, well, tough luck for those who disagree with those reasons.

Except that they don't actually have any reasons. And it's a violation of my rights which I can outline through reason and extend to all.

You have a democratic system, you have (presumably) a secret ballot, so start your campaign in favour of lifting the divorce laws and measure your support.

Oh, I'm doing all of that. The problem is that we have to wait for a public referendum which will be non-binding and then wait for our parliament to make a decision.

If what you say makes sense to the majority of voters in your country, you will prevail. If you fail, blame the weakness of your argument, not the imagined machinations of your opponents.

...no, my argument is not weak, it is bullet proof. It's one of the few places where I have absolute conviction in the validity of my statements. It is a legal contract, under law you have a right to nullify any legal contract.

As for that machinations...they're not imagined. A great number of people voting against divorce are unable to define what divorce is, whilst those in favor of it actually know what the hell they're talking about.

The problem is the number of voters who support divorce but will clearly not vote in favor of it for fear of upsetting the Church.

How does that even make sense?

Did I say it made sense? The Churches are currently actively browbeating their followers into voting against divorce, even against personal moral positions. Why? Threats of hellfire.

Either you have no idea of how many people truly support this and you're simply making the statement up in order to claim support where it doesn't exist, or the average Maltese voter is incurably vapid

Or you're not understanding the core of the Catholic mentality...and yes, I'd say the average Maltese voter is vapid.

-- how does a church get "upset", what action are they going to take if they do, and how is it going to come back to someone who casts an anonymous vote?

Threats of hellfire. Of course, nowhere does Jesus say in the Bible "Give not the right of individuals to commit what I call sin"...so it's an unsupported threat of hellfire.

Wow. You've written so many threads about Christians I am led to believe you are secretly in love with them.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


1: Everyone on the planet is hypocritical on something, moot point Mr. Kettle.

2: Why are you trying to equate premeditated mass murder with divorce? Or am I missing something in the OP?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Wow. You've written so many threads about Christians I am led to believe you are secretly in love with them.

Don't you love Atheists? They talk more about God than a majority of Theists.

BTW Mod, where is the "conspiracy" here? Shouldn't this be in the "Rant" section?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
First of all, catholicism is not really christian, it is merely an extension of Roman paganism and goddess worship.

Oh noes, don't point out that Catholicism is Catholicism.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
I would rather ask why Christians don't condemn the attacks of the Lord Liberation Army, a African Christian extremist group responsible for the deaths of thousands, I'm sure they would, but their silence is deafening

It's because we know that the Lord's Resistance Army (not Liberation, you got your sneer wrong, and not for the first time) is not a Christian group, regardless of the name. You're talking nonsense trying to claim that is...
Vicky

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I never said there are no absolutes, I just think that there are limited absolutes. It's why I take the stance that there are certain inalienable rights which can only be infringed upon in the instance of that individual infringing upon the inalienable rights of another and only in appropriate measure.

What on Earth is a "limited absolute"? There's no such thing as a "near absolute" -- either something is absolute or it is not. And if it is not, then the degree to which is it not is irrelevant. And, again, where in your non-absolute world do "certain inalienable rights" originate from? Public opinion? Biology? Magic?

Absolutes must originate from an absolute source, or they are not absolutes. We might think it morally proper to bestow inalienable rights on, say, animals, but they are not inalienable rights, because we can, and will, take them away when it becomes inconvenient.

Except that the idea of rights originating from a creator being is equally fickle, as it relies upon the whim of the creator and the ludicrous claim that the existence of a creative being somehow bestows inalienable rights upon an individual that would not be present in its absence.

No. You don't believe in God, so you feel free to imagine him how you like, to meet the needs of your beliefs. It is useful to dispel the notion of him being absolute by calling him fickle, but that is not the belief of the faithful. God is an absolute being, and can thus be a source of absolute values and inalienable rights. For purposes of argument, he does not have to be the God of the Christian, Jew or Muslim -- as I pointed out, Jefferson didn't believe in any of them, but he still understood that, without an absolute origination, one could not defend the premise of "inalienable rights".

yes, I'd say the average Maltese voter is vapid.

So this is a matter of "I know what's best for you, regardless of what you think is best for you" then? We'll set aside the values that have been decided on by society, in favour of those decided upon by elitists?

I will plow through the rest of it with this simple observation. Either you truly believe in this problem and wish to solve it, or you are simply using it as an excuse to make posts in an anonymous forum complaining about people on the other side of the world whose beliefs you don't like.

If you believe in your cause, then don't wait around for a referendum or the politicians. Get some paint and a piece of cardboard, make yourself a sign promoting divorce and go stand on a street corner. Or get some friends and protest, peacefully, across the street from a cathedral. Don't sit in your office or bedroom, whinging on a website about "Christian hypocrites" and think that you're accomplishing anything.

Think you might get arrested, or worse? Well, people get arrested, tortured and killed every day for their beliefs, Madness, even Christians. But they often get results -- witness Egypt, Libya and Jordan, just in the past couple of months. Marcos held the Philippines in a seemingly never ending grip of totalitarian dictatorship, and it wasn't until Benigno Aquino put his life on the line, and died as a result, that the people of the nation understood what was at stake and ended it.

That is proof of conviction -- shouting on the street corner stands a far better chance of affecting the laws in your country, whether by others joining in the shouting, or them seeing your mistreatment for your beliefs as an injustice that must be righted. And if you shout, and no one listens, and no one cares, then you have evidenced the fact that, in your non-absolute world, you're wrong, and your opponents are right, because majority rules in matters of non-absolute morality.

But shouting in an anonymous Internet forum, likely read by few, if any, people of Malta? About the only thing that is going to be affected by that is your opinion of yourself.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

1: Everyone on the planet is hypocritical on something, moot point Mr. Kettle.

Did I say that they weren't? Does my point not still hit the mark? I'm merely trying to help people stop a single point of hypocrisy. Were someone to call me a hypocrite and provide adequate reasoning for me being a hypocrite I would gladly do my best to cease my hypocrisy. In fact, I've done that before. I'm a hypocrite on smoking. I condemn my girlfriend for it (she has a lovely singing voice and I hate to see her ruin it) yet I enjoy the occasional cigar.

2: Why are you trying to equate premeditated mass murder with divorce? Or am I missing something in the OP?

I'm trying to equate the lack of condemnation for premeditated mass murder with the lack of condemnation for open withholding of the right to terminate a legal contract (in this case divorce) by the Catholic church. The difference between the two is that on the side of terrorists there are mostly fringe elements perpetuating the acts whilst here in Malta we have the leading religious institution perpetuating this crime.

reply to post by adjensen

What on Earth is a "limited absolute"?

lol, right?

A person can believe in limited absolutes if their rationality is arbitrary.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I'm trying to equate the lack of condemnation for premeditated mass murder with the lack of condemnation for open withholding of the right to terminate a legal contract (in this case divorce) by the Catholic church.

Okay, but honestly that's going to be a near-impossible sell. For your claim of hypocrisy to stick you have to appeal to a morality higher than mankind for it to be true for all mankind. If not appealed to all mankind then it's relative and immediately what's right or wrong to you may not be right or wrong to someone else. And moral relativity has the disastrous problem of being self-refuting.

I give you an A for effort, but I can't fathom how you can equate the morality of premeditated mass murder to divorce.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I never said there are no absolutes, I just think that there are limited absolutes. It's why I take the stance that there are certain inalienable rights which can only be infringed upon in the instance of that individual infringing upon the inalienable rights of another and only in appropriate measure.

What on Earth is a "limited absolute"?

An absolute that holds universally except in the instance of someone violating an absolute. An example being the justification of the taking of an individual's life when there is no other option to prevent them from taking the lives of others.

There's no such thing as a "near absolute" -- either something is absolute or it is not.

Or it's an absolute in nearly all instances.

And if it is not, then the degree to which is it not is irrelevant. And, again, where in your non-absolute world do "certain inalienable rights" originate from? Public opinion? Biology? Magic?

I already told you that they are arrived at by the faculty of reason. And you're the one saying that they arise magically...

Absolutes must originate from an absolute source, or they are not absolutes.

You're begging infinite regress there. The absolute source, being an absolute, must originate from an absolute source.

We might think it morally proper to bestow inalienable rights on, say, animals, but they are not inalienable rights, because we can, and will, take them away when it becomes inconvenient.

And I can take away the rights of another person whenever I wish. It's wrong, but I can still do it.

Except that the idea of rights originating from a creator being is equally fickle, as it relies upon the whim of the creator and the ludicrous claim that the existence of a creative being somehow bestows inalienable rights upon an individual that would not be present in its absence.

No. You don't believe in God, so you feel free to imagine him how you like, to meet the needs of your beliefs.

...no, I imagine a plethora of deities in the manner in which their believers present them. I don't imagine any particular deity in any particularly manner for the sake of my beliefs. Here I was addressing the deistic claims of those like Jefferson and Rousseau.

It is useful to dispel the notion of him being absolute by calling him fickle,

It is fickleness. Any absolute being is, by definition, fickle. What it says goes and no justification is necessary or possible.

but that is not the belief of the faithful.

Well, then the faithful haven't looked into the logical consequences of their beliefs. Granted, believers tend to frown upon applying concepts of logic to their beliefs.

God is an absolute being, and can thus be a source of absolute values and inalienable rights.

So what is the absolute source of this being? You said absolutes must themselves have an absolute source. Why can the absolute values not exist without a source whilst the absolute being can exist without a source?

And can you please demonstrate how that being can be a source of absolute values? Being "absolute" doesn't mean you're right, it means you're absolute. It can mean you're absolutely wrong, as anyone can demonstrate any deity in any religion to be. Obviously, the deistic deity is free from the claim of being proven wrong due to non-intervention.

For purposes of argument, he does not have to be the God of the Christian, Jew or Muslim -- as I pointed out,

Okay...but

Jefferson didn't believe in any of them, but he still understood that, without an absolute origination, one could not defend the premise of "inalienable rights".

And Jefferson was wrong on this and many other subjects. Why? He's fallible.

yes, I'd say the average Maltese voter is vapid.

So this is a matter of "I know what's best for you, regardless of what you think is best for you" then?

No...they're trying to tell others what is best here. I'm saying people should have the freedom to get a divorce. I am neither commanding people to get divorce nor convincing them that they should. I merely believe that it should be a legal option.

Preventing divorce is the forcing of an issue upon others, not the other way around.

We'll set aside the values that have been decided on by society, in favour of those decided upon by elitists?

Elitists? I'm sorry, but I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote on the issue, I just think that we should prevent what is without a doubt the most powerful institution in Malta from blatantly lying to the voter base. I want people to be allowed to make an informed decision on the issue, but I still have every right to think it's wrong.

I will plow through the rest of it with this simple observation. Either you truly believe in this problem and wish to solve it, or you are simply using it as an excuse to make posts in an anonymous forum complaining about people on the other side of the world whose beliefs you don't like.

Come on, you're better than armchair psychoanalysis. You could simply ask. I truly believe in this problem. In fact, I'd love it if some people here on ATS petitioned their congresspeople about the issue.

If you believe in your cause, then don't wait around for a referendum or the politicians. Get some paint and a piece of cardboard, make yourself a sign promoting divorce and go stand on a street corner. Or get some friends and protest, peacefully, across the street from a cathedral. Don't sit in your office or bedroom, whinging on a website about "Christian hypocrites" and think that you're accomplishing anything.

You do realize that I could actually be arrested for doing that, right? Well, at least for protesting in front of a Cathedral...we somehow have three of those. I happen to be actively promoting divorce in Malta, I'm even making a documentary about the lies propagated by the anti-divorce lobby.

Of course, you're guilty of something now. You didn't bother to look into the situation and here you are hurling accusations at me. You don't

Think you might get arrested, or worse? Well, people get arrested, tortured and killed every day for their beliefs, Madness, even Christians.

True, but in this case getting arrested doesn't actually solve anything.

But they often get results -- witness Egypt, Libya and Jordan, just in the past couple of months. Marcos held the Philippines in a seemingly never ending grip of totalitarian dictatorship, and it wasn't until Benigno Aquino put his life on the line, and died as a result, that the people of the nation understood what was at stake and ended it.

Yes, and such a situation wouldn't actually help Malta. Why? Well, people here are afraid to challenge stability and the status quo. I've lived in the society long enough to know that the only way to change things here is gradually. The introduction of divorce is but a gradual step towards actually modernizing our society that is somehow a first world nation yet doesn't give people some very basic rights.

That is proof of conviction -- shouting on the street corner stands a far better chance of affecting the laws in your country, whether by others joining in the shouting, or them seeing your mistreatment for your beliefs as an injustice that must be righted.

And if you shout, and no one listens, and no one cares, then you have evidenced the fact that, in your non-absolute world, you're wrong, and your opponents are right, because majority rules in matters of non-absolute morality.

Okay, now you're just outright lying. There are absolutes...they're just predicated upon the person not violating the absolute rights of others.

Also, F=ma. Quite an absolute there...well, more or less. The relativistic calculations are a bit more difficult.

But shouting in an anonymous Internet forum, likely read by few, if any, people of Malta? About the only thing that is going to be affected by that is your opinion of yourself.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'll get people to realize that there's a bigger world out there. That there are real conspiracies out there. In fact, I'm getting some material ready to show that the Catholic church and the anti-divorce movement as a whole is outright lying about statistics and facts for the sake of tainting the argument.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The absolute source, being an absolute, must originate from an absolute source.

? HUH?

If "A" is the source for all absolutes then there isn't another source. If there were that would make "A" not the source. Law of non-contradiction at work here.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


How can an absolute's source be the process of reasoning? Reason is the product of an individual -- even if you reason an inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", someone else can reason their way to you not being entitled to any of those. Again, you either have to find an absolute source for an absolute value, or you have to accept that a value is not an absolute.

If you kill someone in self defense or to prevent them from killing someone else, you haven't made killing a good thing, you have simply justified the evil act. The absolute -- that killing is bad, still stands, because absolutes are absolute, they are not situational.

So, take your choice -- there are absolute morals, which are derived from an absolute source, or there are not, and you are subject to the "will of the people", whatever that happens to be.

We might think it morally proper to bestow inalienable rights on, say, animals, but they are not inalienable rights, because we can, and will, take them away when it becomes inconvenient.

And I can take away the rights of another person whenever I wish. It's wrong, but I can still do it.

No, you can't take away an inalienable right, because it didn't come from you, it came from an absolute source. You can simply violate someone's inalienable rights, but you cannot refute them. You're apparently missing the point of the inclusion of that very specific claim in the Declaration of Independence.

No...they're trying to tell others what is best here. I'm saying people should have the freedom to get a divorce. I am neither commanding people to get divorce nor convincing them that they should. I merely believe that it should be a legal option.

I don't disagree, but apparently the people of Malta do. Change their minds, and you'll change the law.

You do realize that I could actually be arrested for doing that, right? Well, at least for protesting in front of a Cathedral...we somehow have three of those.

Of course I'm aware of it -- as I wrote, there is value in being arrested. Not to you personally, of course, but to your movement -- if you have a sympathetic case, significant value.

I happen to be actively promoting divorce in Malta, I'm even making a documentary about the lies propagated by the anti-divorce lobby. Of course, you're guilty of something now. You didn't bother to look into the situation and here you are hurling accusations at me.

I'm not sure how I'm guilty of anything -- what I said was "get out there and do some rabble-rousing", because all you really said in the thread is that there's not much that can be done until certain steps are taken and this, that and the other happens. I'm suggesting that if you're passionate about it, and the only way to shake things up is to cause a ruckus, then you're not doing anything by posting a thread here, complaining about Christians in the United States not standing up for divorce in Malta.

I'm not psychic, Madness. Have you linked to your blog or shared your video or done something that would have allowed me to know what you're up to? But I'm still not certain that making a movie is on a par with hitting the streets and passing out pamphlets.

What happened to the OP?