[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Arlo previously]
> Gauging from the Enlightenment treatises published, it seems clear to me their
> decisions were based on reason, not dictates of the Christian God.
> 
> [Platt]
> Who said anything about "dictates?" Typical distortion.
>
> [Arlo]
> Christian ethics derive from the Authority of God. As such, what he says to do
> is "ethical". No??

Ethical but not literal. Remember your lectures about metaphors.

> [Arlo previously]
> Sidestepping. I said where, in Christian ethics, does it say not to feed a man
> lest he become dependent? Where does Jesus say not to heal those who may become
> dependent on others? I don't think "Christian ethics" necessarily cares one wit
> about whether or not the recipient of your charity becomes "dependent". The
> charge is to be charitable. If we are legislating "Christian ethics", why skip
> the main messages and choose only bits and pieces (like anti-homosexuality)?
> 
> [Platt]
> You skip and sidestep teach a man to fish.
> 
> [Arlo]
> And in the meantime, do you feed him or not? Do you shelter him or not? Do you
> heal him or not? I am all for teaching people how to fish, but the "Christian
> ethic" is quite clear, in the meantime, you feed, shelter and heal.

So now you are all in favor of the Christian ethic? You do tend to vacillate, Arlo.

> [Platt]
> I just argued that Jesus never, never said Christian charity or anything else
> should be enforced at the point of a sword. Am I talking to myself here?
> 
> [Arlo]
> You've argued social law should be based on "Christian ethics". I'm just
> wondering why you pick and choose which parts of that get legislated and which
> part gets left to the individual? After all, if you are claiming a law based on
> "Christian ethics", it seems strange to ignore the central tenants of those
> "ethics". 

Law and ethics are two separate subjects, though related. Remember the adage,
"You can't legislate morality, although the PC Nazis sure try.

> [Arlo repeatedly]
> I have said repeatedly that the Constitution was not founded on "Christian
> ethics". The good parts were founded on humanist reason, or enlightenment
> reason. The bad parts were founded on mercantilism and racism. "God" just
> provided a paper-authority.
> 
> [Platt]
> So you question the honesty and integrity of the Founding Fathers such as
> Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and others who frequently referred to God
> in their deliberations? Is that what you mean by "paper-authority?"
> 
> [Arlo]
> They were just people, Platt, drop the deification. That they referred to "God"
> has nothing to do with the law they enacted, since even you have been unable to
> find any basis for how that law derives from the Bible. There attempt to
> establish a government based on reason is admirable. That they were fallible
> and included aspects of mercantilism and racism is quite obvious to even the
> slightest read of history. 

You have offered no basis for the claim that Founding Fathers based some of their
judgments on reason. Not saying the didn't, just that you haven't offered
any evidence. You mentioned Indians, but then turn around and say that
the Indian culture isn't based on reason. I can quote speeches of the Fathers
where the attribute to God their worldview and that He influenced their 
decisions. But why bother? You would deny what they say.

> [Platt]
> You said Marx reflected the teachings of Jesus. Marx proposed making slaves of
> the people by confiscating all private property.
> 
> [Arlo]
> He proposed freeing them in such a way, yes.

Oh, my God. I never thought I would see such an Orwellian statement on this site
like "Slavery is freedom." But I guess after mountains of verbiage, the truth
will out.

   




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/