Christian morality and Death of the West

[protectgoddotcom]

While I agree that much (possibly even most?) of the morals outlined in the Bible are downright silly (abandoning your children for not listening to you?), neo-Conservative Pat Buchanan brought up an interesting point in his book 'Death of the West.' When a society can no longer agree on what it considered moral, there can be no morality to the law - err something along those lines. This would put Americans between a rck and a hard place. Afterall, with time and discovery, the Bible loses its credibility more and more. So with the foundation of Christian morals being uprooted, our morals are taking the form of a chaotic free-for-all. Do you see this as an upcoming epedemic to our postmodern western world?

http://www.protectgod.com

[Godless Dave]

I see it as the period of chaos before we agree on a new set of morals. Some things that used to be considered moral in the past - discrimination and persecution of homosexuals, subservience of women to men, marriage for money, parents choosing careers or spouses for their children, racism - are gradually being considered immoral. Some things that used to be considered immoral - homosexual relations, premarital sex, intentional childlessness - are now considered moral by many. I think eventually our society will come to a new agreement. I also think no agreement is preferable to the old rules. People like Buchanan want to hold onto the old just because it is old - they assume "new" is always "worse". I see it differently; in human history, "new" ideas are better more often than not (but not always).

[Alonzo Fyfe]

I do not understand the point of this argument.

If society cannot agree on morality, it is doomed.

Therefore, it is better to simply accept that slavery is moral (because the bible says so) than to question it? Therefore, nobody should raise objections to the practice of stoning children who disagree with their parents?

If society disagrees on morality, they disagree on what counts as just and unjust laws. So, they debate. And, through debate, improve the laws. The type of argument expressed here seems to be the type of despirate grasp of a losing side, to say, "Agree with me even though I don't make sense, or suffer the consequences."

What's the sense in this?

[dk]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
I see it as the period of chaos before we agree on a new set of morals. Some things that used to be considered moral in the past - discrimination and persecution of homosexuals, subservience of women to men, marriage for money, parents choosing careers or spouses for their children, racism - are gradually being considered immoral. Some things that used to be considered immoral - homosexual relations, premarital sex, intentional childlessness - are now considered moral by many. I think eventually our society will come to a new agreement. I also think no agreement is preferable to the old rules. People like Buchanan want to hold onto the old just because it is old - they assume "new" is always "worse". I see it differently; in human history, "new" ideas are better more often than not (but not always). What you describe is an egotistical subversion of Moral Law by secular fanatics. As you astutely note the fruits have been chaos not freedom. The Great Society specifically targeted blacks in the 1960s, then women in the 1970s and then homosexuals in the 1980s, then built, respectively, ghettos in the sky, a new class of working poor with single mothers head of household, and in the 1980s shackled public health officials in the fight against HIV/AIDs that decimated gay communities. Earth to Godless Dave, progress doesn't compute with a reality full of such gargantuan failures.

[Dr Rick]

When promulgating thiestic fanaticism as a substitute for reason and 2-for-1 coupons, fruits are encouraged to prostletyze in a sea of meaningless metaphors, as you astutely note. First the Great Church specifically targeted their prey with murder and torture via the Inquisitons, and much latter, Anita Bryant. They invaded front porches, and then the internet, respectively, building trees that worked poorly, single engine airplanes that had no class, and then shacked Alabama with a great big rock in the middle of a courthouse that decimated employment figures last quarter. Earthmovers and dk, a computer run by gargoyles is doomed to failure.

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by dk
What you describe is an egotistical subversion of Moral Law by secular fanatics. As you astutely note the fruits have been chaos not freedom. The Great Society specifically targeted blacks in the 1960s, then women in the 1970s and then homosexuals in the 1980s, then built, respectively, ghettos in the sky,

So, because of a few bad public policy decisions related to public housing, we should go back to Jim Crow?

Originally posted by dk
a new class of working poor with single mothers head of household

News flash: that class already existed. But before the women's rights movements, women whose husbands had left or died were relegated to secretarial work, food service, and nursing, at lower pay than male colleagues doing the same work.

Originally posted by dk
and in the 1980s shackled public health officials in the fight against HIV/AIDs that decimated gay communities.

You've peddled this lie on several threads now, but still no evidence to back it up.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by protectgoddotcom
While I agree that much (possibly even most?) of the morals outlined in the Bible are downright silly (abandoning your children for not listening to you?), neo-Conservative Pat Buchanan brought up an interesting point in his book 'Death of the West.' When a society can no longer agree on what it considered moral, there can be no morality to the law - err something along those lines. This would put Americans between a rck and a hard place. Afterall, with time and discovery, the Bible loses its credibility more and more. So with the foundation of Christian morals being uprooted, our morals are taking the form of a chaotic free-for-all. Do you see this as an upcoming epedemic to our postmodern western world?


I don't see a problem. Most everyone still agrees on golden-rule type morality. It's just that we are quite rightly rejecting the crap that Christianity called "moral".

God's examples of morality are often quite evil and immoral. Any moral person would reject them.

[PaulPritchard]

Originally posted by protectgoddotcom
Do you see this as an upcoming epedemic to our postmodern western world?
No, I see it as part of an ongoing debate/discussion of what is and isn't moral.

[dk]

dk: What you describe is an egotistical subversion of Moral Law by secular fanatics. As you astutely note the fruits have been chaos not freedom. The Great Society specifically targeted blacks in the 1960s, then women in the 1970s and then homosexuals in the 1980s, then built, respectively, ghettos in the sky,
Godless Dave: So, because of a few bad public policy decisions related to public housing, we should go back to Jim Crow?
dk: It takes more than a few bad public policy decisions to build sky ghettos.


dk: a new class of working poor with single mothers head of household
Godless Dave: News flash: that class already existed. But before the women's rights movements, women whose husbands had left or died were relegated to secretarial work, food service, and nursing, at lower pay than male colleagues doing the same work.
dk: These are rationalizations, the US government spent trillions to establish a new class of working poor. The growing chasm between rich and poor in the US makes the point in spades, the middle class has been squeezed like tube of toothpaste from the middle.


dk: and in the 1980s shackled public health officials in the fight against HIV/AIDs that decimated gay communities.
Godless Dave: You've peddled this lie on several threads now, but still no evidence to back it up.
dk: Yeh, only about 80% of HIV/AIDs deaths in the US have been MSM, a real success story.

It must be a conspiracy by those Christian fanatics.

[dk]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
When promulgating thiestic fanaticism as a substitute for reason and 2-for-1 coupons, fruits are encouraged to prostletyze in a sea of meaningless metaphors, as you astutely note. First the Great Church specifically targeted their prey with murder and torture via the Inquisitons, and much latter, Anita Bryant. They invaded front porches, and then the internet, respectively, building trees that worked poorly, single engine airplanes that had no class, and then shacked Alabama with a great big rock in the middle of a courthouse that decimated employment figures last quarter. Earthmovers and dk, a computer run by gargoyles is doomed to failure. Talk about hate mongering, but I still love you Dr. Rick.

[Blake]

The argument in the OP strikes me as similar to that advanced by Alasdair McIntyre in After Virtue; he goes a step further and claims that different groups of people in the United States/West don't even speak the same moral language, and thus can't even agree about what they're disagreeing about, making their conversation and debate futile. He does see this as a serious problem, linked to the modernist state of mind.

Many people don't even characterize major American disagreements in terms of discourse, but in terms of war. This fits with his thesis: if rational persuasion of your opponent is impossible, & you feel strongly enough about your stance, what option is there besides the exercise of force?

[keyser_soze]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
When promulgating thiestic fanaticism as a substitute for reason and 2-for-1 coupons, fruits are encouraged to prostletyze in a sea of meaningless metaphors, as you astutely note. First the Great Church specifically targeted their prey with murder and torture via the Inquisitons, and much latter, Anita Bryant. They invaded front porches, and then the internet, respectively, building trees that worked poorly, single engine airplanes that had no class, and then shacked Alabama with a great big rock in the middle of a courthouse that decimated employment figures last quarter. Earthmovers and dk, a computer run by gargoyles is doomed to failure. :notworthy :notworthy

[dk]

Originally posted by Blake
The argument in the OP strikes me as similar to that advanced by Alasdair McIntyre in After Virtue; he goes a step further and claims that different groups of people in the United States/West don't even speak the same moral language, and thus can't even agree about what they're disagreeing about, making their conversation and debate futile. He does see this as a serious problem, linked to the modernist state of mind.

Many people don't even characterize major American disagreements in terms of discourse, but in terms of war. This fits with his thesis: if rational persuasion of your opponent is impossible, & you feel strongly enough about your stance, what option is there besides the exercise of force? I think you make a grand point. There's a school of thought called "moral elimativism" that explains... What the vast majority of folks acquire from an amalgam of culture, school, and experience about scientific psychology and the neurological workings of the brain has no scientific basis, hence can not be reduced(rendered) to a meaningfully scientific statement. The doctrine of elimativism calls this folk psychology. Folk psychology is therefore false in any scientific sense meaning belief becomes a state of folk psychology. This is incredible because it can not be true that anyone believes it. Moral elimativism is based upon two premises…
a metaphysical thesis that needs to reduce common sense psychology to a mature science and
the recognition (demonstrtion) that common sense psychological categories do not reduce to anything that could be used as a scientific account.
Anyway elimativism calls for the elimination of all psychological concepts in favor of neuroscientific ones. From a moral perspective without psychological concepts to animate our activities, emotions, beliefs, thoughts, intentions and desires upon some common cause we can’t possibly understand one another.

[dk]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
I don't see a problem. Most everyone still agrees on golden-rule type morality. It's just that we are quite rightly rejecting the crap that Christianity called "moral".

God's examples of morality are often quite evil and immoral. Any moral person would reject them. I see no evidence everyone accepts the iron rule: do unto others before they do it to you, silver rule: do unto others as they do unto you
much less the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What does the Golden Rule mean in the absense of an "eye for an eye" and/or "do no harm"? Frankly I haven't a clue.

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by protectgoddotcom
While I agree that much (possibly even most?) of the morals outlined in the Bible are downright silly (abandoning your children for not listening to you?), neo-Conservative Pat Buchanan brought up an interesting point in his book 'Death of the West.' When a society can no longer agree on what it considered moral, there can be no morality to the law - err something along those lines. This would put Americans between a rck and a hard place. Afterall, with time and discovery, the Bible loses its credibility more and more. So with the foundation of Christian morals being uprooted, our morals are taking the form of a chaotic free-for-all. Do you see this as an upcoming epedemic to our postmodern western world?

http://www.protectgod.com

Well considering your name and the URL you seem to be simply promoting yourself. Anyway....

The so-called morals of the Bible are not exclusive to the Bible. They are found in almost every civilization of earth.

The "Golden Rule" is found independently. The prohibition on unjustified homicide, stealing, lying, and so on are also those which frequently appear.

The idea that Western society depends on a Christian moral viewpoint is a bit of a stretch.

DC

[yelyos]

You forgot the
platinum rule: do unto others as they would wish you do unto them

[ScumDog]

The plat rule kind of brings confusion into what the person wants to have done to himself, without asking.