It makes you feel better if it comes from some senile old guys instead? Or philosopher kings? Or warlords?
phyllo cant it come from inside you and me
Then it’s possible to say that the Father put it there in the first place.
So you are not getting rid of the authority of the Father or Jesus by spinning it that way.
In my mind, progressive Christianity should return to being “The Way”, and get away from the all too dogmatic approach.
There is evidence that this is how Christianity began: As a “Way” of life that was grounded in a trust that benevolence is the wisest path, spontaneous compassion always has a good effect and a mutual readiness to serve each other helps society as a whole. It also took up many aspects of the OT, like welcoming the stranger, loving the neighbour (even the enemy) etc. The problem with the OT was that the prophets always bewailed that the law wasn’t followed - Jesus saw the problem in a pedantic following of rules, ticking them off or finding ways around them. He said the pious of the day were not following the heart of the law, but used it to give themselves an appearence of being especially holy - and they were preventing others from following the heart of the law too: To love God with all of their being and love their neighbours as themselves.
Yes, that’s where it comes from. Morality can be explained in purely evolutionary terms.
Christian morality is a reflection of a kind of ethos that developed for a particular group of people in a particular set of social circumstances. The virtues of Christianity are what they are because they proved to be beneficial for the group in it’s quest for power. You see special attention paid to the compassionate, altruistic and charitable virtues because those behaviors were useful to the early Christians… who largely consisted of under-privileged people. The Christian ethos is synonymous to the slave ethos (as Nietzsche describe it) in this way. Not ironically should it be noted that behind this operating ethos is also the drive to gain more power and assert a dominance over prevailing circumstances. The Christians could not dominant openly, so they did so underhandedly. The submission to the Christian God is the slave’s attempt to usurp power from those who dominate them; make them feel ashamed, guilty, greedy, ruthless… whatever works to give us power over the powerful.
Later, when the Christian ethos proved to be useful in subjugating the masses with its poison, was it taken up as an official religion. Here the terms are reversed. What began as an ethos of weakness becomes an ethos of power. Religion is now used by those who were its original victims… the ruling classes.
But don’t mistake this as a critique of the virtues Christianity proselytizes… they are certainly natural human behaviors and have their place among the ranks of virtue or mores. Concerning your question I only want to point out that morality is not Christian. Rather, Christianity’s program was to convince us that these virtues do not exist without Christianity, without ‘God’, thereby making one dependent on religious practice and belief in order to be virtuous. This is one part of the overall lie that is Christianity.
But don’t mistake this as a critique of the virtues Christianity proselytizes… they are certainly natural human behaviors and have their place among the ranks of virtue or mores. Concerning your question I only want to point out that morality is not Christian. Rather, Christianity’s program was to convince us that these virtues do not exist without Christianity, without ‘God’, thereby making one dependent on religious practice and belief in order to be virtuous. This is one part of the overall lie that is Christianity.
[/quote]
zoot—I really think you are right on
50s retro–“Who put the bop in the bop she bop she bop? Who put the ram in the rama dama ding dong”.
Who put morality in the human psyche? Evolution is not enough.
Evolution is not enough.
[/quote]
if evolution is not enough…please lay out your arguments for discussion
if evolution is not enough…please lay out your arguments for discussion
[/quote]
No one has determined yet if evolution concerns survival alone or if this survival includes altruism.
if evolution is not enough…please lay out your arguments for discussion
[/quote]
No one has determined yet if evolution concerns survival alone or if this survival includes altruism.
No one has determined yet if evolution concerns survival alone or if this survival includes altruism.
[/quote]
how about chimps living together in groups…does that help survival…they fight but they don’t usually kill
how about chimps living together in groups…does that help survival…they fight but they don’t usually kill
[/quote]
Would any chimp seek to feed a starving chimp?
how about chimps living together in groups…does that help survival…they fight but they don’t usually kill
[/quote]
Would any chimp seek to feed a starving chimp?
[/quote]
do you actually believe that a person needs god to feed a starving person…is god really necessary
Would any chimp seek to feed a starving chimp?
[/quote]
do you actually believe that a person needs god to feed a starving person…is god really necessary
[/quote]
It all depends on what one thinks about god. I’m not saying there is no such thing as a godless morality. It is my belief that moral acts are from a god even when one denies god exists. I’ve heard no good arguments to the contrary.
Do you believe in a god of any kind? What would you say that god is? Are you an atheist?
do you actually believe that a person needs god to feed a starving person…is god really necessary
[/quote]
It all depends on what one thinks about god. I’m not saying there is no such thing as a godless morality. It is my belief that moral acts are from a god even when one denies god exists. I’ve heard no good arguments to the contrary.
Do you believe in a god of any kind? What would you say that god is? Are you an atheist?
[/quote]
what do you mean by atheist…ier again you seem in the attack mode asking about my beliefs concerning god…I don’t like it
But evolution may also include altruism. This is an essay that is as short as it is excellent, so it’s an easy read. In it you will see Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ compared and contrasted to what is called self-referential altruism and reciprocal altruism, something Dawkins suggested could not exist. You’ll see Mackie demonstrate that a Grudger can be likened to an altruist, but firm, and with a competitive edge.
Ask yourself one question: Why “go very very slowly” as the article states?
The answer is obvious- because if your parishioners catch on to what you’re actually doing, they’ll fucking leave. The idea of a group of non-religious people quietly infiltrating the upper ranks of their faith to slowly pull out all the references to God and Jesus and replace them with feminism and socialism in order to ‘build a better Christianity’ would disgust them, and they would expose it, and it would be seen as the shameful, corrupt manipulation that it is.
And if they leave, you won’t have a pulpit, and thus, won’t have the power anymore, which is what this is ultimately about; using what a different ideology/culture built in terms of organization and trust to spread a message they never would have agreed with.
I have to say, the progressive attitude that everybody else are sheep to be lied to for their own good is so ingrained I don’t know if they even realize when they’re doing it anymore.
Build your own fucking Church, parasites!
I think it’s time we had a little church chat, ILP.
Then we will spend a few moments with brother A. West.
Never mind. 