In short, yes.
But let me try to break it down to the fundamentals: it is a morality that denies life, devalues this world and demonizes humanity and self-interest. Perhaps the greatest twist of irony is that, in practise, Judeo-christian morality is nihilism.
Bingo; would explain why there seems to be (at least to me) a rather nihilistic under-current in our society at the moment.
I wonder what Nietzsche would have to say now.
The strain of American Protestantism typified by George Bush et al. is something with lengthy historical and philosophical roots, and it is sloppy thinking simply to lump it in with “Judeo-Christian morality” in order to dismiss both. The West itself continues to coast on 1,600 years of Christian civilization, and when it’s gone it’s gone.
Britain is a good example of what happens to a Western nation that rejects its Christian traditions. People follow the rational course of voting themselves benefits from the now all-encompassing State and partying with the proceeds. (As Chesterton put it, abolish God, and the State becomes God.) Eventually, dysfunctional atheists who can’t reproduce themselves will be replaced by pious Hindus and Muslims. In the US, it will likely be with Roman Catholic Mexicans.
As a side note, I imagine that some people understand ‘judeo-christian’ morality as a form of pacifism and live-and-let-live philosophy which may be close to libertarianism. But they are a tiny minority I’m afraid.
What gives you that idea?
I’m not specifically refering to that, I’m refering to the long and broad tradition altogether, literally everything that has been spawned from the deceptive seed of Paul the oppurtunist.
Yea, they’ve rejected their “Christian traditions” oh so much that the state is still in bed with the church there. rolls eyes
Excuse me, but wouldn’t that consitute Christianity still?
Well, let’s see. We have this horrid concept of “original sin” that is essentially a sweeping declaration of ancestral guilt for all of mankind, we have the idea that “the flesh” is evil, we have an emphasis on the “other-worldly” which has the effect of devalueing the “this-worldly”, we have a form of fatalism represented by divine providence and we have a very strong altruistic sentiment that demonizes the ego and the self. In effect, your life doesn’t really have value, as it is subordinate to the deity. All of this reduces to an extremely pessemistic view of human nature and this life, which would seem to lead to a nihilistic outlook on this world. Since the greatest value is placed on the “afterlife”, this life loses its meaning as it is a mere transitional stage at best and you are essentially discouraged from truly pursueing value and enjoying yourself in this life in the name of obtaining eternal bliss in heaven.
Well, let’s see. We have this horrid concept of “original sin” that is essentially a sweeping declaration of ancestral guilt for all of mankind, we have the idea that “the flesh” is evil, we have an emphasis on the “other-worldly” which has the effect of devalueing the “this-worldly”, we have a form of fatalism represented by divine providence and we have a very strong altruistic sentiment that demonizes the ego and the self.
Many Christians defend, in the name of Christianitym individual rights, profit and rationality when most interpretations of the Bible, by Christians and others, are fundamentally opposed to this. Liberal Christianity is not really ‘Christianity’, it’s the enlightnment Deism with Judeo-Christian trappings. It is in fact inferior, philosophically speaking, because it has failed to rid itself of an irrational and destructive ethical system. Aside from religion the whole anti-gay/prostitution/drug use thing is clearly a meaningless judgement on individual preferences. Of course it is often couched in utilitarian considerations, but one can always tell - and most will readily admit - that religion is the real reason this stuff bothers them.
Onward Culture Soldiers!
Sure they have a state Church, but it’s a meaningless designation. Technically speaking, they also still follow the Divine Right of Kings–how seriously do you think they take that? Britain’s culture is militantly secular.
It would but upon reflection it’s not that accurate a statement. I don’t think most Mexican immigrants are Catholic at this point.
While I think I get your point and I would even say, that one will find a brand of christian meeting your specifications. I would like to remark a few things.
I think the keyword here would be corruption and not guilt or evilness.
This ones are possible interpretations, they are however not necessarily applicable to all brands of christendom. There is a teaching of stewardship over the earth that actually would mean that ‘earthly things’ have to be valued. Even most calvinists act fatalistic, quite to the contrary. The last point I deem the most valid of the three. Given that this kind of behaviour is indeed observable and that altruism can, but necessarily does, cause more harm then good. On the other hand for society to function the some humble selfconstraint is useful. There is a good reason most parents teach their children that.
That something is subordinated, doesn’t mean that it hasn’t got value. Besides that, I’d say that their is good christian consensus putting value on human life as a gift of god.
There is a school of thought that indeed does do that. However this pessimistic view also lead to distrust against human goverments as well. But then this can develop in more then one way as well.
Again one could also say that this lead to selfconstraint useful for human development. The idea of after life and continuum works against certain socially negative attitudes limiting perspective on only ones own life span. Kind of the in-the-end-we-are-all-dead attitude of Keynes.
While certain activities, ideas or institutions labelled christian do indeed have some negative impact, I do not share a general condemnation of christianity. Not at all. Looking at the bigger picture of Western history, I think that christianity did do more good then harm.
While religion as such does influence popular culture and hence social and ethical thought as well, it must be stressed that it deals with ideas that are supposed to have come from a mystical source. By it’s very nature these ideas can neither be proven nor can they be refuted. However I’m a bit concerned when people try to bring religious/dogmatic statements into a debate as a cover for their own ideas exempting themselves from any obligation of proof.
I agree with you on drug use (as opposed to drug abuse), but having a negative opinion on homosexual activity and prostitution is not what I would call a “meaningless judgment.” There are plenty of reasons to discourage homosexual activity and prostitution, and can you give me any reasons why they should be encouraged?
(And before the gorge rises in your throat and you start nailing planks together to construct a soapbox from whence to speechify on the inefficacy of vice laws, I’m not talking about criminalization so please refrain.)
What’s immoral about homosexuality, or even prostitution, unless one believes one has a duty to procreate?
-Jon
Prostitution degrades the participants by detaching a most physically intimate act from any emotional intimacy. Homosexual intercourse degrades the participants by its lewd inversion of the heterosexual act. It is the polar opposite of fertility, in a way that celibacy or sexual relations between people past childbearing age is not. It is sterility, nihilism.
But why should this matter to an autonomous individual? Isn’t it their choice whether they wish to attach intimacy to the act or not? Not every individual is the same, and what some find fulfilling others will not. I fail to see how it differs qualitatively from abstinence, which also hinders the outcome of procreation.
-Jon
Sure, but again, it’s an act that nature brands as non-normative, non-procreative and unhygienic. Individuals who engage in such acts are in a process of continuous self-delusion by thinking their own desire can elevate such acts to equal dignity with a heterosexual union. Nature punishes the former and rewards the latter.
A passing observation (not one I’m applying to you): It’s ironic that homosexuality’s advocates tend to be atheistic, because homosexuality is an obvious evolutionary dead end; it can never be more than a pathology. They advocate an activity that basic evolutionary biology teaches is non-normative and ultimately destructive and it is up to the Christians and Muslims–the anti-Darwin troglodytes–to point out what particularly a materialist worldview should find obvious. This is the modern disease: the belief that ideology trumps biology.
Well, I thought that churches and revealed religion were mostly a political phenomenon and almost always radically opposed to liberty. I don’t think that the conflict is about mere ‘cultural preferences’…
Because some people find happiness in them, without perturbing the happiness of others. Isn’t that the whole point of libertarianism?
Drawing nihilism into this seems to suggest that there is a universally-accepted purpose of man. Did I miss this memo? While truth and morality can arguably be made into consistent, absolute viewpoints, despite relativist nay-sayers, I do not believe purpose can ever be anything but relative.
Homosexuality makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective actually. In a time of a high infantile child rate, it turns out having someone that doesn’t procreate around actually increases the growth of the family. There has been research showing that the chances of a homosexuals offspring increases as the number of babies you have increase. [1] Also, females have a high tendency of being bicurious actually, and have a high rate of alternated sexuality. When you are female and your mate dies, it turns out you increase the chances of survival of your offsprings by bounding and sharing resources with a female, than looking for another male whose evolutionary pressure is to kill your babies so he can focus his efforts in his own gene pool.
Sorry if the English is not that good. Point in fact is that homosexual behavior is found all through the mammal kingdom, whose babies are more dependent on the parents than other animals.
No it doesn’t. That’s why only 5% or less of the population exhibit it. Otherwise, humans would be extinct pretty shortly.
Dogs hump chair legs too; this proves nothing. The bottom line is that it’s a non-procreative union and any species where such unions became the norm would become extinct.