- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason." - Barack Obama
I'm an atheist and I feel that Jesus has some influence over me (although I don't believe Jesus said everything that is attributed to him). I don't think wanting to emulate Jesus is necessarily a bad thing. I don't necessarily think there is any conflict between a deep spirituality and living in a secular society. Roger Williams, the 17th century theologian ...[text shortened]... e do so because he makes a compelling case and not simply because he is an authority figure.
It seems to me that is what Moore (and rwingett) is trying to do. My atheist (but religious) buttocks do not have a problem with it.
Originally posted by rwingettI never said it was impossible to promote ones religious values secularly. What I'm saying is that this letter (and what he says in the interview) is simply using Jesus as an authority figure.
We do so because he makes a compelling case and not simply because he is an authority figure.
I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is opposite everything that Jesus (and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha) taught. All the great religions are clear about one thing: It is evil to take the majority of the pie and leave what's left for everyone to fight over. Jesus said that the rich man would have a very hard time getting into heaven. He told us that we had to be our brother's and sister's keepers and that the riches that did exist were to be divided fairly. He said that if you failed to house the homeless and feed the hungry, you'd have a hard time finding the pin code to the pearly gates.
This is using religion as authority all the way. This is bad, because religion says so.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by PalynkaNo! This a statement of universal values! Do Moses and Mohammed and Buddha belong to one single religion? He is pointing out that these values are universal and that's why you should give them credence - not because they come from a single authority.
I never said it was impossible to promote ones religious values secularly. What I'm saying is that this letter (and what he says in the interview) is simply using Jesus as an authority figure.
[i]I have come to believe that there is no getting around the fact that capitalism is [b]opposite everything that Jesus (and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha) taught[ ...[text shortened]...
This is using religion as authority all the way. This is bad, because religion says so.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou were, but you created an unhealthy monster; Karma rulez😵
I was one of the judges. 😵
How is that relevant to what I said? I know it's different, but how does that detract from the fact he's promoting political change via religious belief? With what else would you accept compromise?
Originally posted by TerrierJackThey are only "universal" across religions (and probably aren't, actually, but let's concede that point for the sake of argument).
No! This a statement of universal values! Do Moses and Mohammed and Buddha belong to one single religion? He is pointing out that these values are universal and that's why you should give them credence - not because they come from a single authority.
Originally posted by PalynkaOn a sociologic basis, because a lack of concrete and verified interest (in our case a possible lack of these universal principles) for all the members of the society is in my opinion the first step for an antisocial attitude. All I say is that, in my opinion, these principles are not a religious product but a product of common sens😵
On what basis would you say universal? You cannot attack an existing paradigm by saying that a contradicting one is universal.
Originally posted by black beetleAh, the ever illusive "common sense". Regardless, Moore does not appeal to common sense, he appeals to the authority of religion.
On a sociologic basis, because a lack of concrete and verified interest (in our case a possible lack of these universal principles) for all the members of the society is in my opinion the first step for an antisocial attitude. All I say is that, in my opinion, these principles are not a religious product but a product of common sens😵