Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2831)	10/27/2000 6:27:09 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Yes, Cobalt, I am very familiar with that. If you wish I can give you many web sites regarding slavery in ancient and very modern times. My point is that Christianity was used to justify slavery. How indeed could I ever say that Christianity causes anything? You would always have the last word, Cobalt. Because, you see, every vice and atrocity known, existed before Christianity--and will exist after. For you to take a position that Christianity has not, and does not, justify (and cause) bad behaviour (simply because bad behaviour is also justified and caused by other religions and philosophies internalized by humans), is to ignore the millions of people that do quote the bible as justification for their values and for their behavior, and also to ignore the philosophy of logic that is taught in our Universities...not to mention common sense. Here is a simple example: I believe that stoning women to death (for walking with a man, not a relative) is wrong. I believe this because of a moral code I have developed. Someone else gets his moral code from a bible he believes is the word of God, and believes killing women for walking with a man is right. Because neither of us is the first in history, to either advocate or condemn the killing of women for walking with a man, does this mean that the moral justification for our respective moral codes should not be examined, and condemned if need be, in the interest of human progress? Would you have it that examination of Christian morals should be outside of this discussion because people have used other religions and codes to justify bad behaviour? Please remember, if we are to justify good behaviour, it involves more than simply acknowledging that their have been may paths to the degradation, torture, and killing of humans--but it involves actively identifying any path that hurts and destroys. Frankly, I think your response was defensive and unworthy. I believe you are trying to defend a belief, and that you are not open to truly looking at facts. How else can I explain a response, from someone claiming to be educated, which asserts that, because a has caused c, that mnopq can't cause it too?? Doesn't make sense? Are you saying that all actions are caused by an intrapsychic process that owes no causal or derivative relationship to the external world? Do our beliefs and our behaviours have no correspondence with the words, writings, laws, and beliefs of other sentient beings? You don't appear to adhere to such a phuilosophy in other posts I have read of yours. Why do you invent this philosophy now??