View Single Post
Old 03-31-2009, 10:57 AM   #30
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I thought your point was directed at the OP originally. I did go off on a tangent, and I apologize for the confusion. The OP states that Christians get blamed for the evil done in the name of Christianity but not credit when Christians do positive things in the name of Christ.
That seems like a difficult argument to support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
If non-Christians are going to slam Christians for the bad things, then they should acknowledge when good things are done.
I believe that all good things deserve to be acknowledged. I guess I would want to know why we need a special category for "good things done by christians". With regards to the conversation of MLK vs. Hitler; both men proclaimed to be christians so clearly being a christian isn't enough to guarantee noble endeavors. And since MLK was also influenced by non-christian leaders, we can't say that his belief in christianity was the sole cause of his achievement. Therefore, I think the most rewarding position is to acknowledge him for the unique individual that he was. Trying to piggy-back some glory for jesus on top of this almost seems petty and insulting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
If not, it's hypocritical.
Not necessarily. If someone does something "bad" and says it's religiously motivated, and then we look and we find that indeed that religion does promote that behavior then both the individual and the system of belief that allowed that action deserve our scrutiny. Now on the other hand if someone does something "good" and it's religously motivated, well that's fine too, however there are lots of people who either aren't religious or don't share that particular flavor of religion that also do good things, therefore trying to attribute that "good" action to religion doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
If your argument is that these good things are done whether or not someone was Christian, then why does that not apply to the bad things also?
Bad things do happen whether or not someone is a christian. However when bad things happen and the persons themselves tell us that they were motivated by their religion to do the bad thing and the religious doctrine does actually support that, then that's a problem for the religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
You can't blame but then not give credit when it's due.
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
It seems to me that atheists (not necessarily those here, to be clear) like to pick and choose what to blame or give credit for, and there's no rational basis for that.
I certainly cannot speak for all non-theists, but I'll be happy to try to address any specific examples that you would like to bring forth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Social justice, love for mankind based on the love Christ showed us, his experience with racism at a young age, and assorted other experience the source documents describe.
I guess I fail to understand how "love for mankind based on the love of jesus" differs from "love for mankind". I think it's pretty obvious that he had copious love for mankind and since I've yet to see anything which we cause me not to think that jesus is a fictional character, it seems to me that the unembellished version is more than sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
That's not the argument I heard, so I think we're on two different tracks, then. I'm hearing 'if Christians are getting blamed for things like religious wars, they should be getting credit for good things done in the name of Christ.'
Why?

"I helped a little old lady across the street today".
"I helped a little old lady across the street today, in jesus' name".

Please help me understand how these are different. Why does the addition of three words make one act more noble or courteous than the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I think we end up doing this a little too often--we think each of us are arguing the same thing when we're off on subtle differences, and I'd like to avoid frustration/contempt issues based on misunderstandings over what we're actually talking about.
One would think that my ban from Kavar's would've fixed that up, eh? Yet here you are, so perhaps there is still more work that needs to be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I'll try to remember to ask if we're on the same page. If you could take that as a legit question on clarification instead of me trying to be a smartass, please, I would appreciate that.
Sounds good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
You and I suck at discussing religion with each other in a civil manner so I'd just rather we avoided the subject as much as possible.
Yet, you responded to my post.

Please forgive me if I find your actions to be inconsistent with your words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Well, I said three time now that King read Gandhi and utilized his methods. I'm kind of confused why you're thinking I'm making the claim in that case.
Post 14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
It is possible to look through documents and determine the amount of influence of both Christ and Gandhi by looking at how many times both are referenced. The lion's share of quotes that King makes in speeches, sermons, and his books are from Christ or the Bible, not Gandhi. If you count up the references (which someone may have done), you'll find your answer on who had more influence on him. It's an indirect measure, but that makes it no less valid than the quote you're asking for.
Assuming that such a nose-count would actually be a valid way to determine such a thing, sure. I am skeptical of the validity of such an argument.

Hint: the bible is the single most reproduced work in the history of mankind and Gandhi's writings mostly consisted of letters and essays written in a foreign language. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many references there are to his mother in any of these works. I hope that one would not be tempted to argue that her influence over him was negligible based on a relative lack of shout-outs in his collected works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
You're implying that I'm arguing Gandhi had no influence. I don't know why, and don't know why you're continuing this line of thought.
No, I'm stating that post 14 would seem to be a deliberate attempt to discount or minimize said influence. My counter-argument to that point, which was offered in post 19, has been ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
I'm confused why you're wanting to make the influence equivalent to Christ,
Who said that I did? In fact, I think I specifically stated in post 19 that influence is not limited. He could have been "very influenced" by jesus and "very influenced" by Gandhi. The only person trying to place some sort of system of measure on this is you (post 14 and all subsequent posts).

Which again, is completely unrelated to the point that I was making, specifically: If we have to count Dr. King's actions as an attaboy for christianity, then we have do so for non-christian belief systems as well. Or we can just acknowledge that he was an incredible human being and leave the theology out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
but I'm beginning to think we're arguing about something that is way off on a tangent from what we're actually trying to get to. If we want to skip this as not what's germaine to the argument, I'm OK with that.
Sounds great.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,