You are insisting this be seen through your particular prism.
Or perhaps I know the extent of the comment that I wish to make in the context that I want that comment to be taken in and am not looking to achieve a comprehensive philosophical view or Weltanschauung of the issue?
My point is that Christianity is inherently flawed,
Disagree but I am not Christian.
and the Protestant Reformation brought this out (and of course, there were previous episodes that got put down).
or shifted the responsibility to the individual in a much stronger way than had ever been the case.
n the one hand, you want to talk about a set of morals that Christianity has. Yet at the same time, a Christian is supposed to love his neighbour, to be tolerant of him.
Again, you wish to focus on the infractions of individuals. Yes, people are going to continue sinning. The issue is whether society has the basis to judge. Get it? I doubt it but I will repeat myself yet again.
Once the northern Europeans broke off from the Catholic Church, all bets were off, simply because if a person or group of people didn't like the existing version of Christianity, they could either start their own version, or move to somewhere else and start their own.
Ah.... I think that I see where you are finally trying to get althrough arguing it badly. You are suggesting that there are denominations of Christianity and thus Christianity is not a unifed whole. True, but that has always been true of Christianity since its inception. Point?
Christianity became a relativistic belief system at that point. This problem was always going to come out of the New Testament though because the old, jealous God was out and a new, tolerant God was in.
Try telling that to the Protestant denominations with their very puritan (get it puritan?) views.
Everything else since has flowed from that and as I keep saying, this issue predates OWS, multiculturalism, the modern welfare state, 19th century socialism or any of the other agenda you keep banging on about.
I see your point but I don´t see that the issue was being able to judge. The issue was that people were to ready to judge and if anything this led to violence because everyone believed that his or her moral yardstick was the one to measure things with.
This is the fundamental difference I see between Christianity and Islam, incidentally. Christianity was always going to dilute itself down to irrelevance in trying to move with the times and allowing people a certain degree of free will. Islam, on the other hand, will eventually become irrelevantly mired in the past.
There is even less one Islam and that has always been the case. Islam is more akin to Judaism in this regard. Where is the Pope or spiritual leader of Islam who speaks for all Muslims and where is its equivalent of St. Peter´s?
As to the OWS having no clear agenda, that's nonsense.
Great. What´s its agenda then? I keep asking but no one answers. Apparently their policy platform was immaculately conceived and we are expected to have faith despite seeing nothing of the sort. It is precisely because we cannot see it that like the Trinity it must exist?
What they don't have is a clear set of policies that they could implement if they were suddenly elected tomorrow as a political party.
Gold prize of understatement of the forum.
Of course, they may or may not ever get off the ground in actually finely honing what it is they are trying to say
So, we still don´t really know what it is they are trying to say so what are they trying to say or what do they need to do to hone what they are trying to say so that people like me can understand their fervent aims?
and become a political force (either within the existing Democratic Party or another party, perhaps a new one),
You mean sorta kinda like the Tea Party. We don´t have any trouble understanding its two clearly articulated aims but the OWS movement...
but that's irrelevant.
Yes, that is a good adjective. Unfortunately, I doubt that you see how it is applicable to this case.
That you are denying that there are certain themes in their movement is just silly.
So... there are themes... what are they? and prove that the average protester had them in the beginning and show that this is not something that was PROJECTED onto them by some union or celebrity or political figure. Now, they may have watched enough news to be able to know what it is that they are supposed to be articulating but I doubt very much that they possessed this in the beginning. It was your usual G20, APEC, NATO, presidential visit protest gathering of FREE spirits who just want to smoke joints and rail against Da Man!
The average person in the movement that you see on TV is not particularly articulate, but he's not morally incoherent.
But aren´t they supposed to be the smart ones so how is it that they are not articulate? I guess that we have to go back to the failed educational system that is leading to the decline of the West. Here, you may have agreement from me. Not morally incoherent???? If no one knows why they are there, how is that not morally incoherent?
He knows that he wants redistributive economics
You KNOW that this is what is motivating most protesters? I certainly do not see how you can know that but feel free to show me the poll or the proof indicating that this is one of the primary reasons why they are there. Also, redistributive economics... yeah, that is really morally coherent. I want more while doing less. Is that a moral position?
and he has a sense of social justice,
social justice is just the latest rebranding of communism, socialism, third worldism, NGO do gooderism, etc. How is this different from the redistributive economics that you mentioned earlier? It isn´t.
regardless of how that may turn out in practice.
For the LOVE OF GOD!!!!! regardless of how that may turn out in practice????? Can you listen to yourself? How in the name of all that is holy is the outcome not relevant to the morality of the cause? Let´s revisit what it means to be morally incoherent again! As long as I mean something good even though I have no idea what the hell that good might be then my action is good? Really? I will give you a second chance. Is this what you want to say????
As others have said, he's not nihilistic, he's idealistic.
Idealistic would indicate the presence of ideals. How can you be idealistic and not nihilistic when you have no idea how that action may turn out in practice nor even have the expectation of knowing how that action may lead to any outcome?
Likewise, to say that there have been unintended consequences of socialism is also silly.
Lost me here.
Did Martin Luther think, when he nailed that piece of paper to that door that Christianity would essentially end up like a cafeteria where you can take or leave whatever you want? Did the early Christians think that tolerance would one day lead to ordained gay or female priests?
Religions can and do change. Ever read Karen Armstrong´s history of God? I recommend it highly. Covers Judaism, Christianity and Islam. We no longer have an issue with ordained gay or female priests, or ministers. We no longer accept slavery. We no longer accept a number of things that were accepted 2,000 years ago. WE have evolved. That is not the same as ditching the entire code as the belief in the core remains and that is the belief in God, faith in Christ or God. Do YOU have an issue with gay or female priests? If so, why? and show me the history of not accepting women and gays into ordainment was always the norm. Armstrong will have some points for me but not for you me thinks.
The problem with your whole argument is that a society can never truly become post-Christian.
Not if I do not want to take this as an all comprehensive view. I want and have stated from the very beginning to focus on the area where Western society tries to take belief in God or Christ out of its value structure and still tries to maintain the Christian elements of that system. Given that I have stated this all along how can you suggest that I was saying that society would move to being POST Christian? when I have stated from the very beginning the Christian sensibilities and values would remain. Only Christ would be taken out?
You want to forever have your cake and eat it too.
Do I? I think that I have stated my position very clearly and you have very clearly indicated that you are going to force any views, comments into a prism that buttresses your prejudices about Western society and the decline of its civiliziation.
Any "post-Christian" society's successes are forever to be the consequence of having been inherited from Christianity, and any of its flaws are to be the consequence of having abandoned Christianity.
Either you were out very late last night or you cannot read. I was talking about taking belief in Christ out of the system WHILE TRYING TO MAINTAIN the Christian moral code. Nietzsche said it would lead to moral incoherence and passive nihilism.
By what standards could a post-Christian society actually be deemed successfully morally coherent?
JESUS H CHRIST! (haha) Now you have it! THAT is the issue. Taking Christ out of the system would lead to moral incoherence! Finally you have cottoned on to the argument that I have been trying to make while quoting Nietzche! Hallelujah!