The use of religion as a bogus front for a mercenary Culture of Death

[omega minimo]

makes one wonder:

Are "genuine" Christians outraged at the hypocrisy and clear and present dangers of Bush administration policies? (For convenience and to offset a religion debate, "genuine" are here defined by the New Testament values of Carrot versus the Old Testament values of Stick).

Are individual congregations or larger organizational bodies organizing their outrage into activism?

How can people of Christian faith stand by and watch their beliefs being prostituted to sell an agenda of greed and death? There must be a lot of soull-searching going on out there. I wonder if it goes beyond the individual and reaches the group level.........

:peace:

[TomClash]

1. A good point

ignored by virtually everyone who is a conservative Christian.

[omega minimo]

3. Since there are many congregations that are non-Fundie

they might be sick and tired of the abuse of their religion and faith.

Fundies follow the guy in the pulpit no matter what he says. Other versions of Christianity are not necessarily so authoritarian.

[whistle]

2. The Christian Right are the American Taliban

http://www.perrspectives.com/features/Taliban.htm

[RethugAssKicker]

4. IMO...American Christians are causing this barbaric behavior

some may say only the Christian right... but I don't know if I am going to confine this only to them.... Where is the outrage?.. Where is the moral disgust by the so called left wing Christians??

[omega minimo]

6. That's the question

"Where is the outrage?.. Where is the moral disgust by the so called left wing Christians??"

Remember that a lot of middle-of-the-road (meant in a general sense-- I've heard this from open-minded, "Independent" voters) Christians fall for the Right Wing line that the Democrats/Left/Liberals disrespect Christians and Christianity.

There are probably more and more folks seeing through that BS and realizing that not only are they being sold out, but their religion is being violated in the most disgusting possible way.

Or, like the rest of the Big Lie, is it so OUTRAGEOUS that no one will face it, believe it, see it for what it is?

[SPKrazy]

12. Middle Of The Road Democrats

tend to be scoffed at by farther left leaning Democrats, and many middle of the road Dems wonder what happened to "their party"

More Democrats would identify themselves as moderate, than far left, yet the moderates are less likely to vote in primaries to actively take "their party" back.

Moderate Christians often look at the right and the left, and see more acceptance on the right for some reason.

I don't think it is just the "big lie". I think it is exploited by he right for political gain, but I don't think they completely pulled it out of their ass.

Moderate Dems swing right over wedge issues, when they might actually vote for Dems were the wedge issues not shoved out in front by the right.

I think that for too long the right has set the tone of the election season by framing it around wedge issues and the left's answer is to oblige them.

Now I'm a pretty far left leaning Christian and a Democrat. I do have feelings about the "wedge issue" of abortion. Why is it that we let the right bring this up over and over and over!

They would lose ALL of their power if they ever took action on it. It's only power is to frame it in a way that says "those on the left want to 'kill babies'" and the left responds with instead of calling bullshit on it, with stronger rhetoric that we will protect the right of a woman to choose.

Of course we will. Most Americans regardless of their view on abortion, don't want laws restricting it do they? Yet we continually let ourselves be drawn down the road of proving to the left that we still support choice. THAT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY NOW

Bill Clinton had the right direction to go with "safe, rare, and legal".

I've lost my train of thought now with this, but I'm quite convinced that we as the left, need to stop getting bogged down in proving to the left (who vote for us anyway because they are us, we are them) that we stand for them. We need to show the middle that we stand for them MORE than the phony wedge issue Repukes do.

Look at all the opportunities that Rove has had (I use Rove as a generic name for the Repuke strategists)

Gay Marriages by the mayor of San Francisco. Bringing this up when he did cost us at the polls.
Why don't we get our folks in the offices (congress, senate, president, courts,) and then change the laws, instead of trying to run against the current? I think that at least civil unions might have had a chance, but the right framed it for us and now it is a wedge issue.

What about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? I appreciate the guy who brought the suit's feelings; however he was found not to have standing to bring the suit. Now we have been painted by the right as the "Godless" Democrats because we (rightly so) have had to support the idea that the pledge shouldn't have "under God" in it. It's even been in the legislature for a vote.

Wedge issue after wedge issue that in the end, we know that the Democratic party is on the right, I mean left, side of is brought forward to paint Dems as whatever the daily press releases call us that day.

I have to say that I think that the ability to beat the press has gotten away from us. Maybe it really is just a right wing media. I tend to think that when I watch it. Yet there are surveys that show that most of the press votes Dem, but the corporate masters vote Repuke.

So, I'm thinking we need to streamline our message, show the middle we DO REPRESENT them and not just say "fuck 'em" or we won't even be winning this mid term election with a president in the low 30's popularity!

[omega minimo]

15. Time for the Middle to represent themselves and ally themselves with

Total Fucking Hypocrites Using Religion To Peddle Death And Destruction

or not.

:kick:


You "use Rove as a generic name for the Repuke strategists" yet you "don't think it is just the "big lie". I think it is exploited by he right for political gain, but I don't think they completely pulled it out of their ass."

That's good propaganda for ya!!

[SPKrazy]

17. We Make It All Too Easy My Friend

many religious people aren't as understanding as I am, and I've been accused of being pretty non-understanding around these parts (maybe not in those words)

My point is that we need to quit making it so easy for the enemy to hit us.

Peace

really

:hippie:

[omega minimo]

18. Your point was that we should pander to the middle rather than they choose

between good or evil-- if they are Chrisitans and their faith is being used to market evil, that is what the OP is about-- what do they do about it?

[SPKrazy]

19. Now We Pander To Everyone But The Middle

during the primaries, and then try to move to the middle in the general elections.

I'm a Christian, and my faith is not being used to market evil. Fundies may use their faith to market evil, I don't know. I don't agree with fundies, but I don't know if they are marketing evil.

At any rate, it isn't my faith. I wish they'd call themselves SuperChristians or something.

Again, your suggestions that congregations should become activitist organizations is akin to the fundies race to become a theocracy. I don't want a theocracy that is left or right, I want separation of church and state.

I want people of faith to be activists politically because they are people that believe in being activists; that may be related to their faith, but it may not.

I don't want brand A of religious activism vs. brand B of religious activism.

[omega minimo]

21. That is your suggestion, not mine

"Again, your suggestions that congregations should become activitist organizations is akin to the fundies race to become a theocracy."


I raised the question of how individual Christians and groups/congregations (assuming they actually talk to each, don't they?) are facing the fact that the Christian banner has been raised in front of Bushco's regime and Crusade.... Hoping to hear from reflective Christians facing this crisis of conscience and deciding to challenge the abuse of Brand Christ.

"I don't want brand A of religious activism vs. brand B of religious activism."

Brand W of religious activism is in command and building empire. Do Christians of conscience sit by and say "That's THAT faction so we don't have to wrest back the good name of Christianity from these zealous hypocrites"?

[SPKrazy]

26. It's Not My Job To "Wrest Back" Anything

I have no control over what other people do in the name of Christ, God, Allah, Jehova, Ali Baba, or the FSM.

I'm just a person who has faith, attends church, tries to support his family, tries to help others in life, votes, volunteers, loves, and prays.

I don't even think I know of anyone who plans to "wrest back" anything, because there is nothing to wrest back, since the fundies don't represent my beliefs, or progressive Christians beliefs.

Maybe someone else feels it is their "duty" to "wrest back" the name "Christian" from fundies, but how exactly would they do it?

[SPKrazy]

7. Here's Your Outrage

we are here with you, outraged at Bush and his policies

doing lots of things that you probably haven't bothered to look into

the difference is that liberal Christians don't wear their religion so much on their sleeve when doing things, we don't say "we are the religious left", we say "we are part of the left"

When you consider that the majority of Democrats are people of faith, and more voted for Gore in 2000 than voted against him, and a narrow majority was won by Bush in 04 (if he did in fact even win) it's hard to say the religious left "does nothing"

we vote
we work in campaigns
we work in different capacities all over this country as change agents
we are mostly Democrats

we believe in the separation of Church and State

[omega minimo]

11. Right, so the OP asks about congregational awareness or activism

"the difference is that liberal Christians don't wear their religion so much on their sleeve when doing things"

Isn't time for Christians of conscience to start "wearing their religion on their sleeve" as a group? How can they stand this insanity in the name of their faith?

[SPKrazy]

13. That's The Difference Between Fundies and Progressive Christians

while we may not be able to stand what is being done/said in the name of Christianity, that doesn't mean that we will or should mimic them in putting our religious faiths ahead of our politics.

I am a Christian of conscience I hope.

and aren't you the OP?

[SPKrazy]

14. Also, Congregational Awareness Or Activism

would make our Churches political movements

I think it's better to have liberal Christians volunteering in the existing activist framework than creating or replicating one that puts a congregation at risk of losing their tax exempt status.

We are for a separation of Church and State, how would the such and such church for so and so work?

As for activism? What about all the churches that feed the hungry in this country, run food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. etc. etc.

[omega minimo]

16. Why are you playing

Devil's Advocate? :evilfrown:


That's a Fundie trick. :thumbsdown:

[SPKrazy]

20. So You Are Now Calling Me A Fundie?

or comparing me to a fundie?

Fundie this!

[SPKrazy]

22. I've Thought About This Post Some More

and it's still a dumb idea to meet right wing theocracy with left wing theocracy

[omega minimo]

23. It was your idea

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

25. No Actually

You said:

Are individual congregations or larger organizational bodies organizing their outrage into activism?

to me that is talking about turning religious organizations into political ones, mixing church and politics, the next step is mixing church and state

left wing theocratic ideas meet right wing theocratic ideas

[omega minimo]

28. Did I say "wrest"?

:spray:

Looks like I did. :hi: I reread the OP and whole thread for better understanding of some missed cues here. Before I reached your post I knew that using the word "activism" may have muddled things and set off alarm bells (for both you and TG) of some agenda that I didn't think I suggested, but maybe churches and members already have some preconceived notions of what they DON'T want to do. But your interpretation and fear is not at all what I was fishing for.

I was trying to ask a more open question about at what level is this being discussed. OldCrusoe caught the "soul-searching" spirit of it. I can see how the OP may have looked like a call for something I didn't intend.

The main point was "There must be a lot of soull-searching going on out there. I wonder if it goes beyond the individual and reaches the group level.........:peace:"

I don't know how much any denomination actually talks about things within the congregation. And calling out a dangerous political cult for toxic religious hypocrisy may be verboten-- there are a lot of hypocrites in religion (as elsewhere in society) and no one wants to turn over THAT rock. :hide:


I appreciate what both you and TG are saying about how you live your lives-- people of all faiths are focusing in that way now. And that's something.

[SPKrazy]

30. Okay, Good

I thought we weren't on the same page, but I can see what you are asking more clearly now.

I don't know that I have any different answers to the question, except that it exasparates me no end that fundies see no problem with mixing church and state in a way that I think our founders (USA) would roll over in their graves over.

Getting out from under the Church of England was one reason there was such a strong realization that church and state don't mix.

I have heard that all of my life.

I can't stand the idea that people seem to have that "this is a Christian nation". This is actually a nation of many faiths and beliefs, and non-beliefs. Christianity may constitute the majority, but individual sects of Christianity don't see eye to eye on everything by any means.

Reminds me of a humorous story.

A man was stranded on a deserted island. He was able to build himself a place to live with the materials on the island. Then he was able to build some other structures on the island.

He was eventually rescued. The rescuers asked him about the structures.
He showed them the hut he'd built.
Then he showed them a church he'd built for worship.
Then they asked about the other building.
"That's another church I built because I didn't like the first one after a while"

(it was funny when I heard it)

the point being that Christianity has from it's inception fought the battles of doctrine.

Look at Ireland, northern Ireland that is. Catholics and Protestants have been warring over a wide range of things (not all religiously based as economics is a big one since a lot of industry is in northern Ireland and to have that area controlled by the British (Protestants) means that Ireland (Catholics) don't have the economic benefits of the industrial area.

In the US, thank goodness, we have no overt wars between sects, but there is spoken animosity between fundamentalists and liberals, protestant and Catholic, etc.

Mainline protestants tend to be more liberal than fundamentalist protestants. Some Catholics are more liberal than others. Some Methodists are more liberal than others. Some Episcopalians are more liberal than others. Some parishes or congregations will be more liberal, or conservative, even within a faith. Look at the Episcopal church, where some diocese' are asking to be split out of ECUSA and put under a different leadership due to a woman who supports gay marriage being elected president bishop of ECUSA.

Etc. etc. etc.

It's hard to organize something with so many branches.

The fundies have solidified around a very few issues: abortion, gay marriage, and biblical inerrancy.

Here you have some denominations that might support anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, but be against biblical literacy.

So even in the religious right, which has indeed been hijacked by the GOP using these "wedge issues", don't march in lockstep on every issue.

Perhaps our best chance as Demcrats would be to find issues that liberals have in common with religous conservatives (pro family, pro labor, pro education, pro healthcare, pro social safety net, etc)

Instead, we get caught up in the wedge issues of the right and we lose because our base doesn't get preached at from the pulpit every week (3 times a week sometimes) telling them who God wants to win.

I understand your sentiments- I think our best chance is to stand together as Democrats, get our base out, make sure our votes are counted, fight to take this country back (let them keep their version of Christianity as it has nothing to do with the majority of people who vote for democrats)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. There's plenty of outrage, but liberal Christians

don't have their own broadcasting networks.

When Pat Robertson spouts his surreal nonsense, it invariably ends up on the front page. When mainstream churches organize parishioners to lobby the state legislature against cuts in social services or participate in the gay pride parade or sponsor refugees from Somalis without the least attempt to convert them, it ends up on page B29, if it's covered at all.

[saltpoint]

5. A timely question beautifully asked.

Many fundamentalist Christians must be soul-searching, and likely more than a few have found Dubya's administration's bloodfang desecration of whole cultures to be wildly inconsistent with the tenets of the ministry of Jesus.

Progressive Christians weren't ever hogwild about Dubya, and probably a lot less so after Powell's cowardly lies to the United Nations, Dick Cheney's repeated insistence that WsMD did in fact exist, and so on down the list of uncountable deceits.

With Abu Ghraib, what few Christians there were of any stripe still in the Bush camp ought to have publicly condemned this president and organized vigorously to oppose his re-election.

Many did. But not enough.

Those people have more than philosophical conflicts, IMO. They have sanity issues. They foam at the mouth at mere mention of same-sex marriage or stem cell research but look the other way as innocent and unarmed Iraqi civilians are maimed by Bush's bombs. I find very little textual support in the New Testament for their endorsement of torture of and air strikes on innocent human beings. Perhaps they could point me toward the passages that condone kicking ass simply because you're the lone bully on the block.

I like your guess about individual vs. group level contamination. These sheep are enjoined by their shepherd to seek the Kingdom, which is promised as a state of eternal peace and justice. Justice for all, that is, even the lesbian scientists living in Apt. 6B upstairs with the cloned Irish setter and an adopted baby.

I honor those Christians who have abandoned Bush on moral grounds. He deserves abandonment, to be sure. We have to await the historians' first books on this presidency. My guess is that they're going to slap the fake cowboy within an inch of his life in every other sentence. I don't think this presidency survives any responsible analysis.

[omega minimo]

8. KISS

Keep It Simple, SoulSeeker. :hi:

Well, thot I'd giveitago. I'm thinking of the SANE Christians.......................................... there's more of them than the Fundie fanatics. Aren't there? :scared: "and likely more than a few have found Dubya's administration's bloodfang desecration of whole cultures to be wildly inconsistent with the tenets of the ministry of Jesus."

:hi: :hug:

[saltpoint]

9. A kiss right back atcha. And not a Bush-Lieberman kiss either.

A Valentine's Day kiss.

It is Valentine's Day, isn't it? I don't have the calendar up...

Hope it's all thorn-free and fragrant for ya. Stay cool in these days of high summer.

[InaneAnanity]

10. What's a genuine christian??

If you switch the words around, changing "genuine christian" to "typical christian", then no. The typical evangelical christian in America is a mindless follower who believes what they are told to believe.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

24. Let me try and explain this to you

Many of us consider ourselves Christians and we look at what our brethren are up to in the fundamentalist movement and we shake our head sadly. And we do things like vote, pledge money, make our feelings known when possible and appropriate.

But most of us aren't out in the streets waving down cars with signs, heading up convocations on theology, etc, because that just isn't who we are. The sort of person who does that is far more political than I, has more skills in that area. I am not responsible for what is done in the name of Christ. I am responsible for seeing that I don't do these things in the name of Christ, and I would extend that to my congregation. If they decided, for example, not to allow gay couples to Communion, I'd raise the roof and pull my money out. But my church doesn't do that.

So the fact that there are some loonie Xtians out there does not make me responsible for cleaning up their behavior. Jesus didn't tell me to do that. And frankly, either did that old SOB St. Paul.

My psychiatrist is a very gentle man from Iraq. He is Muslim. I don't expect him to solve the ills of his faith. He's busy healing folks. I'm busy teaching and raising a family.

TG

[SPKrazy]

27. TG Says It Well

I agree with her

[omega minimo]

29. "Wherever two or more of you are gathered in his name....."

Maybe this (non)struggle -- of one faction not challenging or critiquing the actions of another -- has gone throughout time. I hear both you and SouthpawKicker saying that your expression of faith is personal, not political. People of all faiths know that is how we make a difference.

I wonder where there are Christian individuals and group discussions and congregations doing the soul-searching regarding how Christianity is being perverted in the most hypocritical way (so far this Millennium) and -- if not "out in the streets waving down cars with signs, heading up convocations on theology, etc" -- it certainly gives them new ways to reflect on their own faith and actions in the world.

"So the fact that there are some loonie Xtians out there does not make me responsible for cleaning up their behavior."

I agree with that and also question it. I didn't mean to push the OP in the direction of "activism" that you and SPK have preconceived notions about..... I was curious though, if some Christians are becoming seriously PO'd and motivated about the insane hypocrisy of Bushcoism. Esp. now as all the Rapturists are salivating at the prospect of WW3 in the MidEast.



:hug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

31. Look at it this way

You have heard of all the nonsense going on in the ECUSA. That is my denomination. We are bickering about women priests, Holy Mysteries, and gay priests and bishops.

I DO make my voice heard in that case, because that is MY denomination. As far as I'm concerned, the fundies have always been wrong, but it isn't my job to correct them in their religious beliefs.

Now, that said, when they step on my liberties, then I step in as a citizen of the United States, and not as a Christian.

[Igel]

32. Why is it a bogus front?

People can be quite sincere in their religion, and stipulate that their religion requires fighting or death under some circumstances. To define religion such that these kinds of belief systems simply can't qualify as religion, with power to motivate and inspire, and to provide justification, is to a priori restrict the possibility of understanding their adherents.

[omega minimo]

33. Blatant hypocrisy = Bogus front

[Laotra]

34. Cult of "life"

is very Western ideology of individualistic ego-preservation, based on the metaphysics of subject-object divide, very pronounced in indo-european languages and especially in English.

Religion and philosophy are deep down finding out that life and death is a co-dependent dialectic pair, search for freedom from both.

Sorry I digress from the political framing of the OP, but this is a forum for religious and philosophical dialogue.

[omega minimo]

35. Does that explain the blatant hypocrisy-- and lack of reaction to it?

Ddualistic thinking leads to hypocritical leadership and lackadaisical followers?



"How can people of Christian faith stand by and watch their beliefs being prostituted to sell an agenda of greed and death? There must be a lot of soul-searching going on out there. I wonder if it goes beyond the individual and reaches the group level........."

Is the core of the OP question "religious and philosophical" enough for you?

:hug:

[Laotra]

37. Dunno

>>>Is the core of the OP question "religious and philosophical" enough for you?<<<

Too vague and general, with unopened presuppositions that probably are not shared, for me to sink any analytical teeth into. The "beyond individual and reaching to group level" is interesting, suggesting perhaps a Jungian or similar approach. And so does the "blatant hypocricy", which I think is more often subconscious denial and projection than conscious deception.

[omega minimo]

38. Religious, Philosophical AND Analytical?

:wow:

The "Culture of Life" = "Culture of Death" and propagandizes (conscious deception) with Orewellian terms and Doublethink. How much more blatant does hypocrisy need to be?

[Laotra]

43. I don't get

what you try to communicate. But perhaps you can answer me, why should life be valued higher than death?

[omega minimo]

44. ah, you guys are too abstract for me

I was thinkin the people to ask are in Iraq and Lebanon

[varkam]

36. Religious and philosophical dialogue? Blasphemer!

I was under the impression that this place was sort of a Mclaughlin Group, but for God 'n stuff. :shrug:

:sarcasm:

Your points are well taken. I don't know much about the metaphysics of the subject-object divide, but then again, I only minored in philosophy in college. I do find it interesting, though, that when you get down to the philosophical nitty-gritty, we don't really have a good idea about what it means to die and consequently, what it means to live. The two are popularly defined on one another (e.g. "Death means the cessation of living"), but that just begs the question - which is, I think, what you meant by "co-dependent dialectic pair".

[omega minimo]

39. WWRRRoooonnngg!

Oh, okay. I just wanted to do the McLauglin thing :evilgrin:

[Laotra]

40. And corruptor of youth, so where's my hemlock?!

I think you get what an dialectic opposition means. I've never had any formal education in philosophy, so you beat me. My philosophizing is basically parroting the book I'm currently reading. ;)

So I just came by a profound (IMHO) criticism of "dogma of life preserving" falsely based on the biological natural science view on life (greedy gene meme), "purpose of life is to preserve life", as the empirical data has overwhelmingly supports the view that teleological purpose of all life is to die... ;) not just individual life forms but species also (many times more species have vanished during evolution than exist).

So even if we pass by the "no should from is" tenet, the basic value of life preservation is not based on factual science, which rather points to the other way.

We can of course just accept the value of protection of life just as "given", inherent value, no problem with that, but inquiring minds can as well keep inquiring, as we have now hopefully cleared or by-passed the thinking obstacle of biological and evolutionary explaining. So why is life so highly valued? I haven't read the book further so I guess I must clumsily look towards my religious, mostly buddhist, conditioning, something about notions like sympathy and compassion. Hmm.



>>>I don't know much about the metaphysics of the subject-object divide<<<

It would seem that epistemologically that is the only "knowable" thing. ;)

But if you wan't philosophical references, look towards the Nietzche-Heidegger-Derrida direction. BTW, out of curiosity, what do the teach in philosophy minor about "continental" philosophy, if anything?

[varkam]

41. I'm not sure on the purpose bit.

I don't think that the purpose of life is to die, though that is what all living things invariably do. I think the purpose of our lives (e.g. human life) is different from the purpose of the life of a bacteria or an adorable puppy. Not to say that our purpose is somehow "better", but just that it's different. But even so, just because we all do something, doesn't mean that thing is our purpose. For example, we all breathe but I take it that breathing is not our purpose.

I think it was Aristotle who proposed that the purpose to human life is fulfill our function well. Suppose that I say I have a good 'X' at home. You would want to know what that 'X' is. If I mean I have a good hammer, then you would take my claim to mean that I have a hammer that is well built and pounds nails into wood well (e.g. a hammer's purpose). But, if I mean that I have a good ham sandwich at home, then you would take that claim to mean something else entirely (e.g. it has honey smoked ham, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomatoes, and is on warm bread). So what do I mean when I say 'X' is a good person? We have our ideas, but those ideas are culturally based and I would tend to think that the purpose of a human life (if any) does not differ from geographic region to geographic region.

On the flip side of the coin, perhaps there is no overriding purpose to life. Perhaps it is all absurd. Perhaps we are all like Sisyphus - rolling a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down again. When it comes down to it, I really don't know.

I think you touch on a very interesting point about the issue of life preservation. We are obsessed with prolonging our lives longer, and longer, and longer. On the whole, I think living a long life is a good thing. However, I think it can get to a point where quantity of life and quality of life butt heads - which the medical profession doesn't seem to have a fantastic grasp on.

Why is life so highly valued? Hell if I know. Many individuals would probably say that it's because of God - but if you were to ask me, that just ends up cheapening life and not making it more valuable because it makes life extrinsically valuable and not intrinsically valuable.

BTW, out of curiosity, what do the teach in philosophy minor about "continental" philosophy, if anything?

Continental philosophy? I haven't heard of it. The bulk of philosophy classes that I've taken have centered on bio-ethics (and ethics in general), religion, and science.

Sorry for the long reply :)

[Laotra]

42. Thanks for the long reply

>>>I think it was Aristotle who proposed that the purpose to human life is fulfill our function well.<<<

And what might that function be? Rhetorical question I know. I would like to interprete that proposal that the purpose of life is aesthetic, active and participatory sensitivity to the platonic realm of (mathematical) forms. At least with my current stage of soul searching, I've found out that the value judgements that occur in here mind are not based on ethics but on aesthetics. Or maybe that's just because I'm a pothead? The purpose of life is not to breath but to inhale! ;)

But I formulated my earlier post badly, what I really wanted to inquire is that why should life be so highly valued? Not just that of MINE and MY buddies, but generally? And especially if we relate the question to the question about suffering?


>>>We have our ideas, but those ideas are culturally based and I would tend to think that the purpose of a human life (if any) does not differ from geographic region to geographic region.<<<

I strongly disagree with eurocentric universalism aka hegemonic globalization, which that remotely sounds like, or I want to interprete it that way so I can deliver my rant. I live in a non-european culture and language with nomadic and shamanistic roots that has been culturally and otherwise colonized by europeans for centuries, and now practically assimilated. But perhaps not 100% yet since I can still raise the question? Anyway, when they shipped some of us to the New Land some 300 years ago, at that time those Finns still found out that they were culturally and mentally closer to the local tribes than to the European colonial masters. Perhaps also pre-conseptual thinking, if that makes any sense to you, is not universalistic, but also land-bound?


Edit to add:
>>>Continental philosophy? I haven't heard of it. The bulk of philosophy classes that I've taken have centered on bio-ethics (and ethics in general), religion, and science.<<<

If you are not just pulling my leg, Continental philosophy refers the philosophical tradition of names like Nietzche, Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida etc., phenomenalism, existentialism etc., in contrast to anglo-saxon analytical philosophy (the division is bit old, but creates still beautifull flame-wars).

[varkam]

45. I will freely admit that...

I am largely a dunce when it comes to divisions within philosophy. I know a little bit about philosophy, but not much about "meta-philosophy". So no, I'm not pulling your leg - I really am that dumb :)

As far as Aristotle goes - I know that it just puts us back at square one, but it's still an interesting (and better, IMHO) way to frame the discussion of purpose. But then again, maybe it's just a red herring. Maybe this is just a dream and you're in my head. Maybe I'm in yours. Who knows?

I agree that life should be highly valued (as in all life), but I don't think that all life should be valued equally. I think the life of a cancer patient is worth more than the life of the tumor (in which case, killing the tumor to save the patient would be acceptable), the life of a child is more important than the life of an adorable puppy, the life of a woman is more important than the life of an embryo, and so on, and so forth. If you regard all life as equally sacred, then you'll find a lot of situations that simply cannot be resolved and where inaction is morally reprehensible. I think Albert Schweitzer held that all life was sacred (even that of an insect) and that buddhist teachings say much the same thing (as all living things are trying to achieve enlightenment). I'm not saying that such philosophies are utterly wrong and mistaken (quite the contrary, I think they're onto something), but that it is impossible to live by them. In short, some things need to die so that we can live.

As to why life is valuable? I'm not really sure. Of course, I'm an agnostic/atheist/materialist, so God's out for me. I think it was the epicureans who pointed to sensation. One of the things that all living things can do is have experiences, in some fashion. A plant can bend towards the sunlight, a fish can feel pain, a person can love and lose. Perhaps sensation is why we should consider life so valuable. Additionally, I think it was Kant who pointed to reason and the fact that we humans are the only life forms (at least that we know of) who can engage in such abstract thinking. I'm not sure how I feel about that one, but at least I can square it with my heretical perspective.

[Laotra]

48. Sentient beings

I'm not sure I agree (at least on all levels and in every frame of discussion) that life should be valued or even held sacred (and death abhorred, even though conseptually they are just a dialectic opposition). That is why I asked why life should be valued, as a genuine question, to which you answered:

>>>I think it was the epicureans who pointed to sensation. One of the things that all living things can do is have experiences, in some fashion. A plant can bend towards the sunlight, a fish can feel pain, a person can love and lose. Perhaps sensation is why we should consider life so valuable.<<<

I believe this approach is on the right track. We can do some philosophical trickery and point out that there's no should from is, ethical or moral principles cannot be argued on epistemological basis ("Hume's guillotine"), and thus sentience does not answer the question "why we should" but "why we do". But this is beside the real point.

Sensation (/sentience/experience) begs for more questions. How do we define life (if not just by death)? Is the biological definition of the natural sciences equivalent with the definition of life as sentient being? To answer that, we should be able to answer if experience/sensation is reducible to the 4D-measurable processes of classical physics, or can we say that in the non-local processes of QM entangled particles "sense" each other, and are thus "sentient beings" on some rudimentary level? In that is acceptable and we are still on the same page (even if just for discussions sake), the two definitions (biological life and sentient life) are no longer equivalent and at least some terminological choises must be made to further the discussion. Your turn... :)


Edit:
PS: Funny that you mention Epicurus, I recently participated in a book project about the ethical philosophy of Democritus and Epicurus, and it became very clear that there's no real difference between Epicurus' approach to the problem of suffering and good life and that of Buddhism. "Sentient beings" is of course terminology that I've got from Buddhism.

[varkam]

49. A response.

I'm not sure I agree (at least on all levels and in every frame of discussion) that life should be valued or even held sacred (and death abhorred, even though conseptually they are just a dialectic opposition). That is why I asked why life should be valued, as a genuine question, to which you answered:

>>>I think it was the epicureans who pointed to sensation. One of the things that all living things can do is have experiences, in some fashion. A plant can bend towards the sunlight, a fish can feel pain, a person can love and lose. Perhaps sensation is why we should consider life so valuable.<<<

I believe this approach is on the right track. We can do some philosophical trickery and point out that there's no should from is, ethical or moral principles cannot be argued on epistemological basis ("Hume's guillotine"), and thus sentience does not answer the question "why we should" but "why we do". But this is beside the real point.


I don't think it follows that, if we value life, we abhor death. I think the argument can be made that death is a natural part of living. Though I think that death should be avoided as life should be valued. But I don't think that life and death are necessarily at loggerheads with one another (as I mentioned previously).

Sensation (/sentience/experience) begs for more questions. How do we define life (if not just by death)? Is the biological definition of the natural sciences equivalent with the definition of life as sentient being? To answer that, we should be able to answer if experience/sensation is reducible to the 4D-measurable processes of classical physics, or can we say that in the non-local processes of QM entangled particles "sense" each other, and are thus "sentient beings" on some rudimentary level? In that is acceptable and we are still on the same page (even if just for discussions sake), the two definitions (biological life and sentient life) are no longer equivalent and at least some terminological choises must be made to further the discussion. Your turn... :)

Phrases like "4D-measurable processes" and words like "physics" tend to make my head hurt :crazy:. I happen to think that defining life by sensation is a bit heavy-handed (as I mentioned before, this leads to problems such as not being able to distinguish between a fish and a human), though on the right track. There is a bio-ethicist named Robert Veach (I think) who proposes that human life should be defined by neural activity in the frontal lobe (which is where the traits that we would call "human" are). FYI, death is currently termed when there is total cessation of neuronal activity in the entire brain, which includes areas such as the medulla that are vital for things such as heart rate and respiration. Veach proposes that this is inadequate for humans (being that the frontal lobe is both unique to humans and is the physical locus for much of our human behavior). On a perspective like this, someone like Terri Schiavo would have died all those years ago (when her heart attack starved her brain of oxygen) and not when the feeding tube was removed. I tend to agree - but perhaps that's just me.

I hope that was a clear and sufficient response :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. The change will have to come from within the fundie churches

They don't even recognize us liberals as fellow Christians. It will take their own leaders waking up.

Here's an example:

http://www.startribune.com/357/story/589475.html

Boyd is an unlikely person to be in the spotlight. He is not an actor or an athlete. He is a preacher, an evangelical pastor who leads a Maplewood megachurch called Woodland Hills Church, with 4,000 members.

It used to have 1,000 more members. But they went away after Boyd gave a series of sermons explaining why he refuses to espouse political causes and why he thinks the growing political involvement of believers is not what God wants.

Boyd's refusal to endorse specific Republican talking points from his pulpit was profiled in a front-page story in Sunday's New York Times. Headlined, "Disowning Conservative Politics, Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock," the story was widely read. On Tuesday, it still was the second-most e-mailed story on the Times' website, and it was the top-ranked story linked by blogs.

"I'm a conservative when it comes to theology," Boyd says. "I believe in the Bible, and I preach the Gospel. But the Bible we're to be preaching is not something you can identify just with one party or the other."