KC Chiefs kicker complains about "emasculation of men," gay pride & says women should be homemakers

I like what you have to say on this (including the parts that I did not quote), and maybe you're taking it in a different direction. My comment was intending to address the idea that seemed to imply that we are less moral as a country than we were at a previous time. Am I misinterpreting what you were alluding to? If not, I'm interested to know which time frame you would consider us to have had significantly higher moral ground.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

You dismissed Tom Holland’s work because he is not a historian and does not have graduate degrees in history. So I have to ask, are you a historian with graduate degree in history?

 

I have a graduate degree in history, so am I allowed too?

 

You are correct that the conclusion of the moral argument does not necessarily prove that God is the God of the Bible. We get to that through other arguments. You need to weigh the truth claims of the various religions. To me, the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth from the dead trumps all other claims.

First off, an infinite number of concrete objects is impossible. Consider Hilbert’s Hotel.

Even if there were non-God creators with far superior powers and intellect compared with us, any morality they imposed upon us would still be subjective. They would face among themselves the same problem: without the existence of God they have no objective morality.

Occam’s razor. The solution only requires one timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal Being. There’s no need to add deities to the solution when one is all that’s needed.

 

Excellent. What was your thesis on?

The question is just for interest, not for any kind of argument.

 

I am not ignoring your post, I just do not see it as a refutation to my args & hence, there is no need to have a long drawn out debate.

 

At graduate level, my concentrations were Southern US / minor in African, my primary research interest was the survival of folk traditions, both from the British Isles and Africa including their relation to recording technology (writing and audio). More generally I did most of my reading on the post-bellum South, including race & racism.

 

I am not. But I don't refer to myself as a historian. I probably have just as much history background as he does.

 

That’s an original response. I’m gonna file this away for use at later time. Thanks!

 

I have a question for people who subscribe to this idea of Christianity leading us away from the brutality of the Romans or whatever. How do those people square this thesis of transitioning away from warrior societies of Roman times and the Middle Ages to the society of today they think is weak, soft, decadent, over-indulgent of the least fortunate or whatever. If Christianity was part of the civilizing process, how does that square with the more punitive and rigid society they seem to want? If they long for the "hard men" that will produce peace, are they going to find them in Church? Of course, on the far-right many of them already are grappling with this, and they say Christianity for a lack of a better word, is "cucked" and "woke." Christ was ultimately the champion of the meek and mild, and not particularly friendly to the idea of wealth being compatible with a godly lifestyle.

 

This is an interesting phenomenon I’ve seen before on too hot. You dismissed the ideas of someone because they are not a trained historian, but then you go ahead and give us your ideas on the same subject when you’re not a trained historian. According to your criteria, if we dismiss Holland, shouldn’t we also dismiss you?

 

People dismiss each other all the time here, even if they know what they are talking about

 

You’re lumping millions upon millions of Christians into one basket in terms of what “they” want.

I do not subscribe to the idea that Christianity made western cultures weak, soft, and decadent. I don’t know what you mean by over indulgent of the least fortunate. I subscribe to the idea that Christianity introduced caring for the poor and the needy, the widows and orphans, and the sick and dying across ethnic, racial, and national boundaries. Christianity gave value to the lowest members of society.

Again, very broad generalization when you say they want a “more punitive and rigid society.” Maybe some want that, but most of the Christians I associate with don’t, and they are not longing for theocracy.

The far right is a segment of its own. Just because we call ourselves Christian, don’t cram us into the corner with them.

You are correct Christ was the champion of the meek and mild, but I disagree when you say he was not friendly to the idea of wealth being compatible with godliness. What Jesus criticized was the misuse of wealth, especially if it was used to oppress people. He also showed that wealth can be a trap. I can think of no place where Jesus condemned someone merely for being wealthy.

 

Ok, let me be more specific, the posters here, that's who I was addressing. The majority of vocal Christians posting here tend to be very right-wing politically, and think the West has "gone soft" or "too woke" and in general they favor a tougher approach on a manner of things. There is definitely a fissure on the right over this because the more secular group of far-right people tend to be in the Peter Thiel camp, the ones who argue Christianity and its cultural inheritance is the root of "wokeness." I'm more curious as to how the religious reconcile the idea of a tougher, meaner society to harden people to the world and discipline them with a religion that is at its core one of mercy and compassion (including the 'undeserving'). The secular fascist types have at least resolved the contradiction, so that's why I was curious about the religious people that still to my eyes, say things not much different than those secular fascist types.

 

Its funny that people freak out about a drag "Last Supper" Jesus, but dont get bent out of shape about a SPECOPS Jesus

 

I'm not dismissing his ideas because he isn't a historian. I'm dismissing the notion that he was called that as a way to give his ideas more weight. I dismissed his ideas because they are largely incorrect. Again, these weird religious rewritings of history to advance the causes of Christian nationalism, whether directly or indirectly, largely have to modify the history substantially in pursuit of their hypothesis. The reality is that morality wasn't a major component of the remaking of the political map of Europe. A relatively brutal and pagan Rome was replaced by a relatively brutal and Christian Rome, which split into two empires. The western part of the empire was poorer and more vulnerable due to geography, primarily. So a series of invading tribes wore it down and conquered portions of that empire until it basically didn't exist (while the Eastern half thrived). Those tribes were relatively brutal and didn't engage in what we would consider normal behavior. They then converted to Christianity and largely kept the brutality. They still widely engaged in blood sports. They still largely tortured and killed political rivals or anybody that they viewed as a threat. They often utilized the church as a way to justify the behavior, just as they utilized their prior religions.

Again, to my major point, the tie of Christianity to the state did not make the state more moral. It made Christianity less moral.

 

I mean, the boring answer to why things are not as brutal now is that state power has more effective monopolies over violence and economic power. Maybe Christianity has a role in that in some places, but its hardly the cause of it.

 

That is one argument that I have heard. Another that I have heard is that the decline of disease and advancement of medical technology has increased the value of life. Another is that the democratization of societies have made states view human life as more valuable. Building on that last one, increased education and travel along with the accompanying increased world view have made people less likely to want to kill people from elsewhere.

 

I dont really subscribe to the "Better Angels"/Pinker thesis, and certainly things are capable of regressing, but centralized bureaucracies have definitely cut down on things like retributive violence and raiding/piracy. I am a believer in the Benedict Anderson argument about print media/literacy creating larger levels of abstraction, creating things like a "national consciousness" and nationalism i.e. imagined communities, where larger groups of people are able to see themselves as part of something. Of course nationalism itself is fuel for violence and conflict. But today there is one Germany, not hundreds of German duchies attempting to administer a fractious Holy Roman Empire or what have you.