You seem to think that you have the moral high bound to make that judgement. You don’t. That’s why I’m calling you an imposter...in case you thought I was just throwing that out there to be mean. Not being mean, just stating the fact of the matter.
I don’t think your position is quite as cut and dried as you would like it to be.
Regards,
MG
I read the article. I'm not sure if it's worse if you linked to it without reading it? Or if you read it and thought, "Yeah! That nails my point exactly!"
Question: what bits of religion do YOU think served as the foundation on which western liberal democracy is founded?
Yes, I read it. It applies.
The Magna Carta has its origins in natural law...attributed to nature’s God.
You seem to think that you have the moral high bound to make that judgement. You don’t. That’s why I’m calling you an imposter...in case you thought I was just throwing that out there to be mean. Not being mean, just stating the fact of the matter.
Regards,
MG
This isn't a debate about morality. There is no moral high ground. That you think it is a moral argument is probably why you want to argue religion is the foundation of liberal western thought.
Seriously. Pick anything and lay out the case of your example being a Judeo-Christian based element that is foundational to what made western politics and social organization to move in favor of universal rights and concern with epistemology.
pick anything and lay out the case of your example being a Judeo-Christian based element that is foundational to what made western politics and social organization to move in favor of universal rights and concern with epistemology.
You seem to think that you have the moral high bound to make that judgement. You don’t. That’s why I’m calling you an imposter...in case you thought I was just throwing that out there to be mean. Not being mean, just stating the fact of the matter.
Regards,
MG
This isn't a debate about morality. There is no moral high ground.
Call it what you want, but when you can stand up on what you believe to be ‘high ground’ and call someone else a fraud without any evidence, that’s the act of an imposter. You have no moral authority to do that.
I read the article. I'm not sure if it's worse if you linked to it without reading it? Or if you read it and thought, "Yeah! That nails my point exactly!"
Question: what bits of religion do YOU think served as the foundation on which western liberal democracy is founded?
Yes, I read it. It applies.
Whoa, ok, assertion noted.
The article was entirely about western culture. It made a late, unsupported claim to attributing individual rights to the Judeo-Christian tradition but it didn't actually make a single case for that late argument. It was not a resource making the argument you are claiming it made. Most of it read like it was defending the conjunction of Judeo with Christian, really.
The Magna Carta has its origins in natural law...attributed to nature’s God.
Interesting. So you wish to argue that natural law is derived from beliefs in the Judeo-Christian God?
pick anything and lay out the case of your example being a Judeo-Christian based element that is foundational to what made western politics and social organization to move in favor of universal rights and concern with epistemology.
This isn't a debate about morality. There is no moral high ground.
Call it what you want, but when you can stand up on what you believe to be ‘high ground’ and call someone else a fraud without any evidence, that’s the act of an imposter. You have no moral authority to do that.
Regards,
MG
I'm calling you a fraud because you have yet to make a single coherent argument or point. Instead you use strawmen like asserting bias or binary thinking as dodges. We have yet to have a discussion on this board where you have been able to share an informed opinion that demonstrated you understood your claims actual content. It never happened when we discussed Grant Hardy. It never happened when we discussed the Anthropic Principle. You have demonstrated zero comprehension of the points made in this thread regarding the nature of an infinity. And it's happening now with your claim the Judeo-Christian tradition is responsible for the development of western liberal society. When presented with a basic level webpage outlining what is meant by the Enlightenment you went about appropriating the Enlightenment with zero demonstration you know what that entails.
The article was entirely about western culture. It made a late, unsupported claim to attributing individual rights to the Judeo-Christian tradition but it didn't actually make a single case for that late argument. It was not a resource making the argument you are claiming it made. Most of it read like it was defending the conjunction of Judeo with Christian, really.
The Magna Carta has its origins in natural law...attributed to nature’s God.
Interesting. So you wish to argue that natural law is derived from beliefs in the Judeo-Christian God?
Not only. Stoics and Greek philosophers along with others were referring to and elucidating upon natural or inherent characteristics of what makes a good person. The Christian tradition associated these natural inclinations towards goodness as being rooted in nature’s God.