Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Christian Egalitarianism?

Page 4 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 4:13 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

As a matter of fact, I agree with ruveyn about institutionalized Christianity bearing spoiled fruit. I'm talking about individuals.
And I have to take responsibility? I need only have to take responsibility for myself, not for others. There's no such thing as collective guilt, but in the minds of bigots.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


8O Elaborate for us, please.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 4:22 pm

JWC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

As a matter of fact, I agree with ruveyn about institutionalized Christianity bearing spoiled fruit. I'm talking about individuals.
And I have to take responsibility? I need only have to take responsibility for myself, not for others. There's no such thing as collective guilt, but in the minds of bigots.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


8O Elaborate for us, please.


No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators. That's like saying that all Jews are guilty for the death of Christ because Jewish collaborators 2,000 years ago had handed Jesus over to the Romans when they had felt their position threatened by his message. Or saying that Germans today have to bear the guilt of the Holocaust because of what Hitler and his minions had done. Or to say that Catholics are all responsible for the bad behavior of their church. Or to say that all Americans are guilty for the atrocities committed by the Bush administration against Muslims overseas.
Only bigots hold a grudge against a certain group are going to hold innocent individuals guilty for the action of a group they're part of.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 4:26 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators. That's like saying that all Jews are guilty for the death of Christ because Jewish collaborators 2,000 years ago had handed Jesus over to the Romans when they had felt their position threatened by his message. Or saying that Germans today have to bear the guilt of the Holocaust because of what Hitler and his minions had done. Or to say that Catholics are all responsible for the bad behavior of their church. Or to say that all Americans are guilty for the atrocities committed by the Bush administration against Muslims overseas.
Only bigots hold a grudge against a certain group are going to hold innocent individuals guilty for the action of a group they're part of.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Does this hold true for the wealthy? For example, should we hold all of the 1% liable for the actions of a few unscrupulous individuals?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 4:27 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Despite this, there will always be those who hold to their faith and do the right thing, despite their churches.


That is quite true though I do not believe it is their faith which accounts for this - it is just themselves who bear credit. Because let's face it, they do this by interpreting things in a way that is compatible with what they know to be right or what appeals to their sense of what is right, and often find ways to exclude elements that are not right. Those who hold look to the faith itself to know what is right, rather than themselves, become fundamentalists.

That is not to say that there isn't some useful philosophy in the thing, that can be applied to achieve moral progress. But I think it's a matter of having a good moral compass to begin with, to be discriminating about it.


But it can be argued that that conscience in those true Christian believers had been implanted by the Christian religion through what had been taught to them as right, rather than through any bad example by less than honest fellow congregants.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Last edited by Kraichgauer on 30 May 2012, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

30 May 2012, 4:28 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators.


Sorry but I don't agree. If you become a communist, you're responsible for the crimes of communism to some degree. That responsibility is alleviated if you accept the responsibility, understand why it happened, and work towards correcting the causes and elmininating them from that worldview.

It is not alleviated by simply denying responsibility, denying the events happened, denying the perpetrators were motivated by that worldview, denying the perpetrators were real members of the worldview, etc etc etc. These are all cop-outs.

Comparisons to ethnic groups bearing collective responsibility is not valid. Being a member of an ethnic group is not a matter of choice, and ethnic groups are not worldviews. Therefore collective responsibility does not fall on the members. Worldviews associated with ethnic groups are a different matter.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 4:31 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators.


Sorry but I don't agree. If you become a communist, you're responsible for the crimes of communism to some degree. That responsibility is alleviated if you accept the responsibility, understand why it happened, and work towards correcting the causes and elmininating them from that worldview.

It is not alleviated by simply denying responsibility, denying the events happened, denying the perpetrators were motivated by that worldview, denying the perpetrators were real members of the worldview, etc etc etc. These are all cop-outs.


In such a case, a communist should acknowledge what his philosophy had done, but he or she can't be held accountable personally for Stalin's mass murders and purges, unless he or she had taken part in them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 4:34 pm

JWC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators. That's like saying that all Jews are guilty for the death of Christ because Jewish collaborators 2,000 years ago had handed Jesus over to the Romans when they had felt their position threatened by his message. Or saying that Germans today have to bear the guilt of the Holocaust because of what Hitler and his minions had done. Or to say that Catholics are all responsible for the bad behavior of their church. Or to say that all Americans are guilty for the atrocities committed by the Bush administration against Muslims overseas.
Only bigots hold a grudge against a certain group are going to hold innocent individuals guilty for the action of a group they're part of.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Does this hold true for the wealthy? For example, should we hold all of the 1% liable for the actions of a few unscrupulous individuals?


In all fairness, no; even though I concede I have used that rhetoric in the past without thinking. I shall try to be less sloppy in my statements in the future.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

30 May 2012, 4:36 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
In such a case, a communist should acknowledge what his philosophy had done, but he or she can't be held accountable personally for Stalin's mass murders and purges, unless he or she had taken part in them.


The acknowledgement is part of taking responsibility. He is not liable personally for more than endorsing the worldview ... but since the worldview is liable for those actions, he is responsible in an indirect manner because he has endorsed the worldview, and that is why acknowledgement is a responsibility.

If he denies that Stalin was a communist or says that communism itself can do no wrong and therefore Stalin wasn't a communist, or Stalin wasn't a real communist because his understanding of Marxism was flawed (which is arguably true but doesn't change the fact), these are cop-outs and he has failed to meet his responsibility. Because he has done so, he is obstructing correction of the inherent problems in that worldview. Because he is obstructing correction, he is now becoming personally liable for those crimes; his obstruction makes him party to the offense.

This is why it's important to take responsibilty for the views one endorses.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 4:39 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JWC wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No one can be held responsible for actions they had not taken part in, despite their association with the perpetrators. That's like saying that all Jews are guilty for the death of Christ because Jewish collaborators 2,000 years ago had handed Jesus over to the Romans when they had felt their position threatened by his message. Or saying that Germans today have to bear the guilt of the Holocaust because of what Hitler and his minions had done. Or to say that Catholics are all responsible for the bad behavior of their church. Or to say that all Americans are guilty for the atrocities committed by the Bush administration against Muslims overseas.
Only bigots hold a grudge against a certain group are going to hold innocent individuals guilty for the action of a group they're part of.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Does this hold true for the wealthy? For example, should we hold all of the 1% liable for the actions of a few unscrupulous individuals?


In all fairness, no; even though I concede I have used that rhetoric in the past without thinking. I shall try to be less sloppy in my statements in the future.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


That seems fair to me. :D



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 4:55 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
In such a case, a communist should acknowledge what his philosophy had done, but he or she can't be held accountable personally for Stalin's mass murders and purges, unless he or she had taken part in them.


The acknowledgement is part of taking responsibility. He is not liable personally for more than endorsing the worldview ... but since the worldview is liable for those actions, he is responsible in an indirect manner because he has endorsed the worldview, and that is why acknowledgement is a responsibility.

If he denies that Stalin was a communist or says that communism itself can do no wrong and therefore Stalin wasn't a communist, or Stalin wasn't a real communist because his understanding of Marxism was flawed (which is arguably true but doesn't change the fact), these are cop-outs and he has failed to meet his responsibility. Because he has done so, he is obstructing correction of the inherent problems in that worldview. Because he is obstructing correction, he is now becoming personally liable for those crimes; his obstruction makes him party to the offense.

This is why it's important to take responsibilty for the views one endorses.


Stalin had betrayed the spirit of the Red Revolution, and so it would be fair to say he wasn't much of a real Communist. He just used communism a means to justify his actions.
Same with those so called Christians who had picked on ruveyn.

Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 4:58 pm

In Communist Russia, if you wanted to stay alive; you were a Communist.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2012, 5:20 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Despite this, there will always be those who hold to their faith and do the right thing, despite their churches.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You will be able to spot them dangling from nooses or being nailed to crosses.

ruveyn



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,518
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

30 May 2012, 5:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Despite this, there will always be those who hold to their faith and do the right thing, despite their churches.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


You will be able to spot them dangling from nooses or being nailed to crosses.

ruveyn


Under certain historical circumstances, that is correct.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer