Attack Against Christendom

We can all find bad things that happened in the past and work to ensure we don't copy them today.

But, I still don't see how you are applying your concerns about Hearst, demons, etc., to today.

 

Ok, but it depends on what you mean by being "used".

Slavery is certainly a way of using. So are monopolies.

 

The most obvious, and widespread, way of using other people is consensual sex.

 

Even the Catholic Church agrees with the importance of consensual sex.

 

So do I.

I think we have different definitions for "use". You seem to consider only the negative connotations of the term.

 

Very interesting response! Your last statement has me hung up because I always believed that things/objects were to be used while people were meant to be loved. When speaking of using people (perhaps in an employment situation) what is being used is time -- a thing.

 

Yes. I brought up the point that "use" can mean different things.

In the context being discussed, I didn't agree as the point seemed to be that "use" of individuals is required for the success of our country.

That would need to be explained much more carefully.

 

Love is overrated.

I mean "use" in the simplest possible sense. Every time you go to a doctor, you use his skill to make you better, while the doctor uses your ability to pay insurance. Every time you go to a party, you use other people's skills to make you feel happy, while they use your need to feel happy to either have a good time themselves (party-goers), or to earn a living (the people who made your clothes, your drinks, your food), There's nothing wrong with using other people as long as it's consensual.

 

Thanks for the reply. Very thought provoking. The Beatles must have been before your time.

 

The US isn't my country. I was talking about human societies in general.

Yes, use of individuals is required for the success of every country. Soldiers, for instance. Doctors. Construction workers. Farmers. Can't have a functioning society without them. Doctors and construction workers use farmers' skills to get food. Farmers use doctors and construction workers' skills to stay healthy and have a roof over their heads.

Can you imagine a society that would require each individual to acquire every possible skill in order to stay alive? I can't.

 

The meaning of "use" can include acts that are not legitimate, or border on questions of ethics and personal rights.

For example, using people as a human shield is not acceptable.

Often, "use" involves denial of choice or compensation.

 

Everything we do, and everything we are, borders on questions of ethics and personal rights, because we can't assign absolute values to ethics and personal rights.

Soldiers are used as a human shield, and that is acceptable. You probably meant "civilians", which is indeed not acceptable, unless civilians have to become soldiers even if they don't want the honor, like the men conscripted in Ukraine. Ethics is fluid, isn't it?

 

You mean Trump and the Republicans?

 

I found a great quote by Martin Heidegger in his essay, "The Question Concerning Technology, and other essays” by Heidegger, Martin; essays from 1949-1954 (pdf.) New York, Harper Torchbooks,1977, in which he discusses Christendom, First Century Christianity, and nihilism. I think he describes the American Christian fascists of today who could be called nihilists in spite of their moralistic (not moral) values based on personal caprice, arbitrariness, blind tradition, and provincial cultural prejudices.

“Christendom for Nietzsche is the historical, world-political phenomenon of the Church and its claim to power within the shaping of Western humanity and its modern culture. Christendom in this sense and the Christianity of New Testament faith are not the same. Even a non-Christian life can affirm Christendom and use it as a power, just as, conversely, a Christian life does not necessarily require Christendom. Therefore, a confrontation with Christendom is absolutely not in any way an attack against which is Christian, any more than a critique of theology is necessarily a critique of faith, whose interpretation theology is said to be. We move in the flatlands of the conflicts between world views so long as we disregard these essential distinctions (QT, The Word of Nietzsche: “God Is Dead,” p. 63-4).”

 

Cute, coming from someone who supports Hedges, the journalist who worked for Putin's propaganda machine for years.

No, I don't mean Trump, or the Republicans. I'm sure there are decent, honest, intelligent people among Republicans. Let's not forget that Trump has been a Democrat, has changed his political affiliation more than once (five times according to Wikipedia), and he certainly didn't work for anyone else except himself. You shouldn't underestimate the man's ego.

 

That's not accurate .. that "Trump didn't work for anyone else except himself" and what does some journalist have to do with it ..or someone's opinion of a journalist.. silly Ad hom fallacy .. don't even know what poster's position was .. don't have to ... still worthless Ad hom fallacy.. and which journalist is not working for either US or Russian propaganda machine these days ? far and few in between those are.

Trump worked very hard for his backers .. and it mattered not whether he was Red or Blue .. his backers don't care .. as they control both sides.

It is you who underestimates Trump's backers. You don't get to stand on the stage to begin with prior to being vetted .. never mind move up through the process without further vetting .. by the time you get anywhere close to winning the nomination for either side. and then to win .. that is another level of vetting yet.

 

Yes the world is fallen. And clearly there is no glory in death. But I don't agree that Gods great sacrifice, or Christianity, was in vain. Nor was it to one generation alone, but to every generation before and after. His life, death and resurrection secured immortality for all, and degrees of eternal life to his partakers. It is reasonable then, that he didn't come to save us in our sins, but from our sins. So one can live in this world without being of the world (by his example and power). When he returns, I assume that it will be when his labors to call and try men's souls have been wrung out, and his promises to our progenitors fulfilled. But only he knows that time, as all things are before him, and the judgment of the matter then is his. So whether we honor men whom we can see and who pass away, or honor God whom we cannot see and who is forever...it is nonetheless honor, and without cost. If nothing else, it is an exercise in the spirit of charity and good will, such as when we regard strange traditions, and the habits and ways of others with whom we are unfamiliar, but whose ways have come down thru the ages. When Jesus Christ said, "I am the light and life of the world", he was either a crazy ape or God himself.

 

Absolutely!

That's why I think using the term "use" is not good enough. The range of behavior of one towards others has a broad scope when it comes to ethics.

 

Fair enough, but I don't know what term would more suitable.

 

I'm pretty sure we here don't have a single word for it.

Part of the reason is that it is a spectrum. And, rules one might propose for one area may not adequately consider other areas.

For example, those in the military have given up significant parts of their rights and thus may be ordered to do things that it would be monumentally wrong for civilians.

Also, questions of what is abuse in employment situations has always been a topic of discussion - not something that is unchanging. Women should know this very well. But, so should everyone in technology jobs, where contracts often prevent employees from leaving a company and ever working in that industry again - taking away the personal expertise an individual has invested in creating.

Anyway, I don't believe one word will ever cover what is "right" in terms of what one individual or group can demand of another.

 

Go back and read my posts and Kyklos' to understand my reply to him.

The poster not only boasted that he supports Hedges himself, he also urged others to support the journalist. Gently reminding him of his own position is not an ad hominem. How would you call accusing others of working for Putin while supporting one of Putin's apologists?

I'm afraid to ask who do you think Trump's backers are. Please don't say "deep state" or "military industrial complex". Pretty please, with a cherry on top and pink ribbons.

 

We know who Trumps backers are .. and only someone who knows nothing about Washington does not realize that Washington is a pay to play system .. and that the lobbies are huge. I have no idea what "Deep State" refers to .. and neither do you .. so you are talking gibberish .. using nonsense terms .. certainly one I did not use .. of which you do not know the meaning.

So in essence you are saying "Please do not say that Trumps backers are "deep state" but I have no clue what the deep state is so I wouldn't know either way .. I just don't know and have no clue what the terms I use mean"

OK mate .. wish granted .. I will not say Trumps backers are "Deep State"

Are you seriously unaware of "big money" influence in Washington ? never heard of such a thing ? I don't think so .. so why are you pretending otherwise ?

 

I'm beginning to see the problem. You focus on what seems right here and now, while I'm looking for an umbrella term for all kinds of interpersonal interactions, good or bad, ethical, immoral, amoral.

I'm more interested in why people do what they do than in what people actually do, and I judge the morality or righteousness of human behavior by its consequences, not by intentions. That's why I'd rather look past here and now at the bigger picture.

 

Again, I agree. The consequences are always super important.

All I said was that there isn't one term that covers only actions that are legitimate "use".

In most cases, one has to dig in further than that.

 

I couldn't care less who pays whom for what in Washington DC as long as all parties involved have to compromise in order to gain some while losing some. Compromise is the living soul of democracy, after all. I'd be worried if all the pay would only go one way and one way alone.

Other than pretending not to understand sarcasm (don't you, really?), your answer is almost satisfactory. "Almost", because not naming the backers, while implying everything and everyone is for sale in American politics. is eerily reminiscent of conspiracy theories.