Women in Christian politics

[Borachio]

So, your morality is based on nothing more than intuition? Is that what you're saying?

An action seems right to you, because it seems right?

I can't help but think I'm missing something.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why are we assuming that "tolerance" is the proper ethical basis on which to oppose hatred? As an unrehabilitated modernist, I think that it's possible to oppose hatred, bigotry, etc. on the universalising grounds of humanism, rather than on the particularising grounds of "tolerance", and so without either forcing ourselves to get into a tizzy about "tolerating intolerance", or making uncomfortably fascistic appeals to the primacy of ACTION! over reflection.

 

[Borachio]

The trouble with humanism, though, is when people start dehumanizing others. So: "We can do what we like with that lot over there. They're simply not human beings. And they won't experience pain or distress like we do."

 

[Traitorfish]

Can that be understood as "humanism", though? Humanism, as I understand it, is necessarily universalist or at least universalising, but what you describe here is just another particularism posed in the terms of a certain vocabulary. It contains no interest in overcoming cultural or social barriers, of emphasising a shared humanity, but quite the contrary, emphasising or even inventing divisions within humanity.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Our brains exist in separate bone boxes and primarily communicate through extremely abstract contrivances like sound and dumb little symbols. How could we possibly be more divided?

Division is in our nature. Look at Christianity: its primary spiritual idea is the ultimate separation of all of humanity into a small group of lucky bastards and a bunch of chump nuggets for the universe's most amazing deep fryer.

 

[Borachio]

Can that be understood as "humanism", though? Humanism, as I understand it, is necessarily universalist or at least universalising, but what you describe here is just another particularism posed in the terms of a certain vocabulary. It contains no interest in overcoming cultural or social barriers, of emphasising a shared humanity, but quite the contrary, emphasising or even inventing divisions within humanity.

Well, as a self-described Universalist, I couldn't agree more.

But this is just arguing along the lines of no true Scotsman.

I might thus define anyone who sees another person as a non-person as not being a true humanist*. Which seems somehow to lead me to almost have a teeniest sneaking suspicion that maybe they're not quite as fully human as a true humanist. Do you see?

*actually, I'm getting muddled with person and humans here: to me they're not equivalent - but this strays off the topic somewhat.

edit: actually I should have learnt by now not to try and engage in coherent conversation with people - it's plainly not my forte. I'm more comfortable with inane absurdity.

 

[ace99]

Thomas More was a noted humanist, yet also a great fan of burning Lutherans.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, as a self-described Universalist, I couldn't agree more.

But this is just arguing along the lines of no true Scotsman.

If somebody is Suffolk born and raised, then they're not a Scotsman, true or otherwise. The fallacy is judging inclusion in a category on spurious grounds, not simply exercising any sort of judgement at all.

Thomas More was a noted humanist, yet also a great fan of burning Lutherans.

"Humanist", in a 16th century context, just means "advocate for the humanities". It means he preferred Virgil to Aristotle, is all.

 

[El_Machinae]

All my Humanist friends love burning Lutherans too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Our brains exist in separate bone boxes and primarily communicate through extremely abstract contrivances like sound and dumb little symbols. How could we possibly be more divided?

Inability to communicate by any means, for a start.

Inability to even detect each others existence would be a step farther still.

Division is in our nature. Look at Christianity: its primary spiritual idea is the ultimate separation of all of humanity into a small group of lucky bastards and a bunch of chump nuggets for the universe's most amazing deep fryer.

Your keep universalizing your particular branch of Christianity. That you yourself believe that this is just or accurate by no means allows you to speak for other Christians.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Inability to communicate by any means, for a start.

Inability to even detect each others existence would be a step farther still.

You got me there.

Your keep universalizing your particular branch of Christianity. That you yourself believe that this is just or accurate by no means allows you to speak for other Christians.

Well, I suppose I am being unfair. ( I don't have a branch of Christianity, btw. ) I'm sorry if I implied that your form of Christianity wasn't legitimate. I suppose I have a bad habit of ( as we discussed before ) of taking the "hardliners" of a religion as the "truest" believers. Perhaps it's time I finally forced myself to stop doing that.

I'll revise it to say that many people seem to take to division pretty enthusiastically and the harsher forms of Christianity show this tendency.

 

[El_Machinae]

The truest believers are those who walk the walk of their interpretation, no?

 

[AlpsStranger]

The truest believers are those who walk the walk of their interpretation, no?

Yeah, that's true.

I've always had a 'bias' towards sterner interpretations of religions, but it's probably nothing but a bias on my part really.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, I suppose I am being unfair. ( I don't have a branch of Christianity, btw. )

No, I don't buy that anymore. You've identified yourself with a particular branch of Christianity that you argue vigorously for. If you aren't a particularly unpleasant Calvanist, the difference is so negligible that I cannot notice them.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I really don't know what to say. I'm not a Calvinist or even a Christian, but there's obviously no way I can prove I don't hold a particular belief.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I really don't know what to say. I'm not a Calvinist or even a Christian, but there's obviously no way I can prove I don't hold a particular belief.

You could stop advocating for that belief, as a start.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Alright, I suppose that's fair.