skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Punishment has to serve a purpose, other than satisfying the punisher's lust for vengeance, in order to be of use. However, the Biblegod's version of punishment means that if you don't believe, your punishment never stops. It's pure vengeance. Unconditional love means that you use punishment only to correct and reform the wrongdoer. It's still tough love enough, for punishment is always tough to go through, but of course temporary, corrective punishment for sins is "too vanilla" or "too soft on sin" to please the conservative/fundamentalist segment of Christianity, heh. There's that lust for violence in the believers who adamantly preach that anyone who doesn't believe as they believe go to hell. It's a perversion, really.
I'm an atheist and I'm opposed to any religion that teaches the monstrosity of everlasting hell. So revolting is this concept that I can't see why any rational human being could accept this fear-mongering nonsense. But I'm sure if God exists, he's much nicer than the religious fanatics portray him to be. And more willing to correct even the worst villain ever and punish him only to cleanse him of his sins altogether. Because this is true love: to redeem even the worst among humans. Otherwise Satan or whoever is responsible for making humans sin is more powerful than God himself.
80 comments:
Someone once told me it was child abuse to not raise my kids with a religion. I now think it is more like child abuse to teach them to live wtih this kind of fear and strange breach of logic.
Crimes should be punished, yes. Children should be taught societal norms. But, adults have come to form their own opinions. Many times in opposition to what they used to believe.
So, who is to determine what they should or should not believe, or what they should or should not do? Religion is a useful way to "determine" what someone should believe, or do. But, unless it is criminal behavior, then I doubt that it is loving to control another's opinion or action by punishment. (Certain scientists would disagree, as these think that determining another's behavior is what conditioning is about...and that humans should be conditioned by punishment.)
All I can tell you (and him) is that evil is truly evil, and good is truly good: Failure to uproot the former from one's own being, coupled with the impossibility of either death or decay after the common resurrection (since Christ destroyed death once and for all through his death & resurrection), leads logically to an eternity of remaining trapped in evil, without the possibility of escape (since change generally and repentance particularly is impossible in the afterlife: the soul becomes thus `cemented`, as it were, in either good or evil [the later is known as 'the hardening of the heart']).
So if you want to blame God for not letting us die, instead of accepting that the problem lies with the rational soul that holds fast to evil as a blind man to his stick, instead of receiving God's healing, go right ahead.. that's what the countless souls of those trapped in hell for all eternity will do anyway: forever. -- They reject the light, and cling on to the darkness, and then wonder why on earth they feel so bad.. they think God is the "bad guy" for taking away all their little toys (like the ability to enact revenge or satisfy their anger; or fulfill their "needs" [ie, the addictions that enslave them]; etc).
So what you're saying is that disbelief in God is truly evil and this is why infidels deserve everlasting punishment? Nice going, your God is really very very tolerant of free thought *sarcasm off.
Lvka,
Though you may think that "God" is the ultimate controller, people are the ones that carry out what they presume to be "god's purposes", and this is a problem in our day, isn't it? Those that kill themselves for "god's purposes" think like you do. But, unfortunately, those that presume such an arrogant stance about another's life or its purposes, do not bring hope to people but despair.
Life is not in "God's hands" but the individual, who can take their life, if they desire to. These must come to be aware of what they want to "die for" ( or give their lives to). And it certainly shouldn't be "for God". Life will be (or should be) determined by the person themself, one way or another, at least in free societies.
this quote is yet again confirmation that nontheists want to be free to do whatever they please without fear of reprisal. this behavior is probably one of the reasons why people try to convince themselves there is no God.
this quote is yet again confirmation that theists are only able to do good and avoid doing bad things out of fear of reprisal. this behavior is probably one of the reasons why people are so easily led to believe that there is a God.
There, fixed!
One can surmise that there are many and various ways to understand abuse of power.
Governments can abuse power through overseeing the lives of their citizens, where the citizens are no longer free, but in bondage to serve only the government's interest, which is really about serving those that control the government..
"God" can abuse power (if one believes that "God", no matter what he requires is "good", therefore, one should not question what he asks, but only obey).
Individuals can abuse power by not treating others with proper respect, and that also, includes themselves.
Because we atheists are free to do as we please, except when it hurts other people, we do not have years of pent-up repressed sexuality that leads to varying degrees of social and psychological problems.
Our self control is from within, not from an imaginary deity.
Lyka, who created the system in which souls are cemented in the afterlife? Did the souls decide on the timing of this cementing, or is this how God has set things up? I know I would certainly choose that the cementing happen *after* I was in the afterlife for a good while so that I would know exactly what I was getting myself into.
Do you think the party or parties who created things like this (souls being cemented in the afterlife) bear *any* responsibility *whatsoever* for it?
True justice requires that a punishment be fitted in proportion
to the crime. The proposition that
the biblical god is "just"--as we
understand this concept--implies
that this god would punish in proportion to the crime. So by definition, any punishment that exceeds the severity of a sin is,
therefore, unjust; for they lack of
any sense of proportionality--given
that finite beings cannot commit sin of infinity nature. And even the sum total of sins committed by
any particular individual during his/her life time, would not amount to an "infinite" number. And, like manner, an "infinite" reward for good finite behavior is
also disproportional.
"nontheists want to be free to do whatever they please without fear of reprisal."
You do so love that misconception, don't you?
It is laughable.
Nontheists are instinctively ethical and are subject to the natural consequences of doing unethical things, as well as being subject to the laws that have been made loosely along the lines of natural instinctive ethics.
What non-theists want to be free of is being judged unethical for having rejected a silly myth, a myth that is often used to do harm to others and that surely, in its demand of irrational and illogical thought, must do our society harm in terms of scientific discovery and invention and progressive ideas and fair treatment of other humans.
"this quote is yet again confirmation that nontheists want to be free to do whatever they please without fear of reprisal. this behavior is probably one of the reasons why people try to convince themselves there is no God."
trae norsworthy, I wonder what it is that I want to do which you don't. I have no wish to rape, steal, murder or commit any of the offences set out in the Ten Commandments except not to observe the Sabbath. However, as I was not a slave in Eygypt (Deut 5:15), I doubt that I am governed by this stricture.
Although I have a few heroes I have no idols.
And, as for the First Commandment, I certainly have no gods before the god of the Old Testament of which I am aware. Indeed, I don't even have that one.
So please tell me what it is you think I want to do which you don't.
Lvka said
So if you want to blame God for not letting us die, instead of accepting that the problem lies with the rational soul that holds fast to evil as a blind man to his stick, instead of receiving God's healing, go right ahead.. that's what the countless souls of those trapped in hell for all eternity will do anyway: forever. -- They reject the light, and cling on to the darkness, and then wonder why on earth they feel so bad.. they think God is the "bad guy" for taking away all their little toys (like the ability to enact revenge or satisfy their anger; or fulfill their "needs" [ie, the addictions that enslave them]; etc).
The idea that the wicked continue to rebel against God in hell is a commonplace part of the Arminian "free will" defense of the doctrine of eternal punishment. Where do you find this idea in the Bible?
A person only has to know one thing to know that the New Testament is all bunkum.
The judgment day was predicted as being "at hand" by John the Baptist, which meant "very soon". All things were to be fulfilled in "this generation" of two thousand years ago according to Jesus.
A big ol' failed prophecy is what the New Testament consists of and nothing else. As it turned out, it was not "these last days" as the apostle said but only the beginning of Christendom and of torture and murder in its name down through the centuries.
Why "christians" can't see that is beyond comprehension by those who can see it.
I just realized that what is argued here is an age-old dilemma...not for me, though.
Does "good" exist apart from God, and therefore, God is bound by that good also, OR is "good" defined by God, therefore, only what God designs is "good" (no matter what others understand..)
There is another dimension to this today, I think...
Since the question could be about "god"...it is now about "good" itself. Is "good" to be defined objectively, by government/God/others or is "good" to be defined by the person themselves? Is "good" objective or subjective? Is "good" defined by social constructs, or is "good" defined by personal contexts?
Lvka said,
"...So if you want to blame God for not letting us die, instead of accepting that the problem lies with the rational soul that holds fast to evil as a blind man to his stick, instead of receiving God's healing, go right ahead.. that's what the countless souls of those trapped in hell for all eternity will do..."
Prove that there's such a thing as a "soul".
Trae said,
"this quote is yet again confirmation that nontheists want to be free to do whatever they please without fear of reprisal..."
Nope.
Atheists (thoughtful, intelligent ones, at any rate) don't disbelieve so they can behvae 'any-which-ol'-way' without the fear of some invisible sky-daddy looking over their shoulder. They disbelieve because :
1. The story is incoherent
2. The described "god" is a moral monster
3. There is a lack of evidence, coupled with what amounts to a heavily edited and embellished single source for the claims
4. Everything that has been discovered about the world refutes the original claims
etc.
word ver. = "wayste"
as in, what a wayste it is that so many people have devoted their lives to memorizing the minutiae of a fairy tale, and pretendin that it matters.
erkki
this quote is yet again confirmation that theists are only able to do good and avoid doing bad things out of fear of reprisal.
Not exactly. I’m pretty sure you’re familiar enough with christianity to know that this is not how it works. There may be some Christians who operate this way but, they are not doing so as a result of Christian belief.
this behavior is probably one of the reasons why people are so easily led to believe that there is a God.
People believe in God because of revelation (general and specific) and because there is a reasonable case for doing so
Clare
we do not have years of pent-up repressed sexuality that leads to varying degrees of social and psychological problems.
Actually, there are plenty of nontheists who have problems. Furthermore, not all theists have those problems.
Our self control is from within, not from an imaginary deity.
The problem is self control really has no meaning for nontheists. You even admitted you’re free to do as you please. Other nontheists do not artificially restrict themselves to not hurting others as you have and they are equally justified. Second, self control to you means something different to another nontheist so, the two can lead to conflicting or even contradictory actions. There is no secular way to resolve the dichotomy.
Charles
finite beings cannot commit sin of infinity nature.
They most certainly can. Rejecting an infinite God is without question an infinite sin.
goprairie
Nontheists are instinctively ethical and are subject to the natural consequences of doing unethical things
Patently false.
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-21.html
as well as being subject to the laws that have been made loosely along the lines of natural instinctive ethics
Those ethics have no real meaning. From a secular standpoint, no person is justified in telling another person what is moral or not. therefore, whatever “ethic” that you are referring to is completely impotent and academic, not real or practical.
a myth that is often used to do harm to others
That myth has been the source of immeasurably more good than bad.
in its demand of irrational and illogical thought, must do our society harm in terms of scientific discovery and invention and progressive ideas
Not only have many scientists in the past conducted scientific inquiry because of their religious belief, the same is true today. We can list them if you like.
and fair treatment of other humans.
As we speak, Christians are fighting for liberty and equality on probably every continent and they have been doing so for centuries.
Samphire
So please tell me what it is you think I want to do which you don't.
Because you artificially restrict yourself from natural actions doesn’t mean that you aren’t justified in doing them from a secular standpoint.
The morality you hold yourself to, where did those ideas come from?
Corky
beginning of Christendom and of torture and murder in its name down through the centuries.
this is one of the most common misconceptions perpetuated about christianity. Christianity has probably been the greatest source of good in history. at the very least, christianity has been responsible for much more good than bad
"Rejecting an infinite God is without question an infinite sin."
Not for a finite creature. By definition, a finite creation cannot do anything infinite.
"finite beings cannot commit sin of infinity nature."
They most certainly can. Rejecting an infinite God is without question an infinite sin.
My God, the Christians who post here are morons. What does this even mean? Without question? Yes, that's right - it's all settled, because you say so. Imbecile. You have no fucking idea of what you're talking about. You're like a trained parrot - no, I take that back. A parrot has some understanding of what he's being trained to say. You have no clue.
this quote is yet again confirmation that nontheists want to be free to do whatever they please without fear of reprisal. this behavior is probably one of the reasons why people try to convince themselves there is no God.
And everything you say here is evidence that Christians are incapable of bringing anything substantive to the table.
Really, just STFU. You're embarrassing yourself - or you would be, if you had the brains to realize it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - fundamentalists cannot be reasoned with; they can only be managed. Worthless parasites, the lot of them. Quarantine them and breed them out of the genome; it's the only way to ensure human survival.
And Lvka, this applies to you as well. Get a fucking life. Seriously - get out of the house, get a job and stop spewing your ignorance all over the internet. Keep your depraved Orthodox theology to yourself. No one wants to hear it.
"My God, the Christians who post here are morons."
Cipher, I don't think trae norsworthy is a moron. I'd say he's more like a brilliant demagogue, but that's what you got to be when you are a Christian apologist. Basically, you got to be gullible as fuck (true definition of "moron") in order to believe all that demagogic BS that passes as Christian Apologetics (what a joke!).
trae norsworthy said...
"The morality you hold yourself to, where did those ideas come from?"
Well, we know they didn't come from the Old Testament and if the Pope is representative of Christ on earth then we also know that they didn't come from the New Testament. They come from the continuing evolution of human society. Unfortunately, not all societies are equally evolved.
The liberal ideas we hold to in a humanist secular society lead religious societies by the nose. One immediate example is the imminent state-imposed death of a woman in Iran, sorry, correction, I meant Virginia, tomorrow. We hanged our last in 1955.
What would Jesus do?
Eternal hell, Eternal punishment, and all those kinds of things you find in today's English Bibles are mis-translations made to scare idiots into heaven. Google this string and read to learn what is really going on -- AION 165 ETERNAL -- You can go to www.concordant.org and read more too. Bob Todd, San Jacinto, CA
GearHedEd
Atheists (thoughtful, intelligent ones, at any rate) don't disbelieve so they can behvae 'any-which-ol'-way' without the fear of some invisible sky-daddy looking over their shoulder.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. There certainly are some who leave christianity for that very reason.
They disbelieve because The story is incoherent
While this point is certainly debatable, think about the alternative. They are leaving for a farce; no person can substantiate the belief that there is no God. so exactly how are they improving their situation when they are leaving for a lie? It’s like lopping off a part of your brain.
The described "god" is a moral monster
How so?
There is a lack of evidence
So when atheists become Christians because they “followed the evidence”, they’re delusional?
a heavily edited and embellished single source for the claims
The “variants” you are referring to amount to about 1% of all available texts (in regards to the meaning of the text). How is that “heavily edited”?
Everything that has been discovered about the world refutes the original claims
Wow. there are some historical experts who adamantly disagree with this characterization. Their case is that the evidence actually points in favor of the original claims.
what a wayste it is that so many people have devoted their lives to memorizing the minutiae of a fairy tale, and pretendin that it matters.
Certainly no worse than pretending to know something (there is no God) that no person could possibly know.
Paul Rinzler
Not for a finite creature. By definition, a finite creation cannot do anything infinite.
The action without a doubt carries an infinite connotation. What you are essentially saying is that God created a flawed system whereby He doesn’t give people enough time to make an informed decision. How can you substantiate that position? We’re given the freedom to choose and sufficient information. Again, this recapitulates the nontheist desire to be free but not be held to any consequences.
cipher said...
My God, the Christians who post here are morons. Imbecile. You have no fucking idea of what you're talking about.
Very classy. You’re representing your belief system with the highest standard of dialogue.
You have no clue.
You don’t know what I understand and what I don’t. you may not have been told this before but, these comments are called ad hominem.
What does this even mean? Without question? Yes, that's right - it's all settled, because you say so. And everything you say here is evidence that Christians are incapable of bringing anything substantive to the table. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - fundamentalists cannot be reasoned with; they can only be managed.
Why don’t you tell me where I went wrong specifically without the personal attacks?
Worthless parasites, the lot of them. Quarantine them and breed them out of the genome; it's the only way to ensure human survival.
Wow. and gearheded just got through saying that nontheists are enlightened. Loftus goes on and on about how tolerant nontheists are.
Erkki said...
Basically, you got to be gullible as fuck (true definition of "moron") in order to believe all that demagogic BS that passes as Christian Apologetics (what a joke!).
Note to loftus: observe these ad hominem posts and then decide for yourself who is anti-intellectual
Samphire said...
Well, we know they didn't come from the Old Testament
Really, you just got through describing the ten commandments.
and if the Pope is representative of Christ on earth then we also know that they didn't come from the New Testament.
I think you know that the pope’s status as religious representative is not without controversy which affects your conclusion.
They come from the continuing evolution of human society. Unfortunately, not all societies are equally evolved.
this dan dennett inspired sleight of hand doesn’t work. many people make the case that America, et al, flourished because of Christian ideals, not in spite of them. now that secularism is working it’s way to the top in some societies, we see the result of stalin, mao, pol pot, contemporary china, etc. the human rights abuses in these countries is almost incalculable.
additionally, the societies that have the least human rights violations are in the west and are much more Christianized. Does that mean they are more “evolved”?
morality has no meaning in a secular system. People’s experience leads them to conflicting actions and there is no secular way to resolve the dilemma. If we were true to our “evolution” roots, we would kill off the indigent, infirmed and those who inhibit the survival of the strongest.
Dennett tries to explain morality as an evolving meme. Allister mcgrath accurately pointed out that dennett’s idea could be nothing more than a meme itself which brings the issue back to square one; morality must come from a transcendent moral anchor.
trae, we don't have sufficient information because we can't comprehend an infinity.
trae wrote
"morality has no meaning in a secular system. People’s experience leads them to conflicting actions and there is no secular way to resolve the dilemma. If we were true to our “evolution” roots, we would kill off the indigent, infirmed and those who inhibit the survival of the strongest."
Try reading something on animal morality. I suggest Frans Waal, "Good Natured." Even animals exhibit the roots of moral behavior and which is contrary to the behavior you imagine our evolutionary roots would require.
Furthermore, you mischaracterize what evolution means. Evolution doesn't say that members of a species must kill the weak; it says that genetic improvements, in the context of a particular environment, will tend to survive into succeeding generations. You can get your misunderstanding of evolution from any true reading of what evolution actually is.
trae:
Really, you just got through describing the ten commandments.
As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, are we to believe that the Isrealites wandered the desert for 40 years without any societal rules until Moses went up a mountain to collect a couple of stones - how banal? They had just left Egypt (supposedly), an ancient culture which could not have existed without morality akin to the Ten Commandments.
I think you know that the pope’s status as religious representative is not without controversy which affects your conclusion.
The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to get it right. You imply that they have not yet managed it. So where does your particular superior morality come from?
this dan dennett inspired sleight of hand doesn’t work.
I've never read Dan Dennett.
many people make the case that America, et al, flourished because of Christian ideals, not in spite of them. Now that secularism is working it’s way to the top in some societies, we see the result of stalin, mao, pol pot, contemporary china, etc. the human rights abuses in these countries is almost incalculable.
Now where have all dem injuns gone? Not to mention the buffalo and the hunting grounds.
And if it is wrong to kill one's own (it is) why does Christian America still do it?
additionally, the societies that have the least human rights violations are in the west and are much more Christianized. Does that mean they are more “evolved”?
I suggest you compare the prison statistics both of the religious make-up of the American prison populations but also the comparison between incarceration rates in America compared to more secular Europe. You might also like to compare gun ownership statistics and murder rates between Christianised America and secular societies.
Back in the 18c in christian Britain we used to hang children. What sudden revelations were received from God to suggest the error of our ways?
morality has no meaning in a secular system. People’s experience leads them to conflicting actions and there is no secular way to resolve the dilemma.
What nonsense. New moral contradictions arise on a daily basis but I am not aware of any country which turns to the bible for revelatory guidance.
If we were true to our “evolution” roots, we would kill off the indigent, infirmed and those who inhibit the survival of the strongest.
Just like European christian invaders killed off the indigenous populations of North and South America?
If you knew a little more of the ToE you would know that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Nowhere does the theory require the elimination of weaker members of the human species. Indeed, if you watch a few nature films you will see that animal societies tend to protect their own. That is why you should never kill a wasp for fear of the mass retribution of his mates.
In a herd of wildebeest there will always be some old and weak. It is other animal species which take them out and not the stronger members of the herd. Is the herd demonstrating considered moral behaviour when it acts to defend its weaker members from attacks by lions or is it something more instinctual?
Dennett tries to explain morality as an evolving meme. Allister mcgrath accurately
In your humble opinion?
pointed out that dennett’s idea could be nothing more than a meme itself which brings the issue back to square one; morality must come from a transcendent moral anchor.
So why has it taken 6,000 years (minimum) to get to a westernised system of law? Isn't such slow progress more indicative of an evolving realisation than a sudden revelation of a new paradigm?
trae:
Part 1:
Really, you just got through describing the ten commandments.
As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, are we to believe that the Isrealites wandered the desert for 40 years without any societal rules until Moses went up a mountain to collect a couple of stones - how banal? They had just left Egypt (supposedly), an ancient culture which could not have existed without morality akin to the Ten Commandments.
I think you know that the pope’s status as religious representative is not without controversy which affects your conclusion.
The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to get it right. You imply that they have not yet managed it. So where does your particular superior morality come from?
this dan dennett inspired sleight of hand doesn’t work.
I've never read Dan Dennett.
many people make the case that America, et al, flourished because of Christian ideals, not in spite of them. Now that secularism is working it’s way to the top in some societies, we see the result of stalin, mao, pol pot, contemporary china, etc. the human rights abuses in these countries is almost incalculable.
Now where have all dem injuns gone? Not to mention the buffalo and the hunting grounds.
And if it is wrong to kill one's own (it is) why does Christian America still do it?
trae,
Part 2:
additionally, the societies that have the least human rights violations are in the west and are much more Christianized. Does that mean they are more “evolved”?
I suggest you compare the prison statistics both of the religious make-up of the American prison populations but also the comparison between incarceration rates in America compared to more secular Europe. You might also like to compare gun ownership statistics and murder rates between Christianised America and secular societies.
Back in the 18c in christian Britain we used to hang children. What sudden revelations were received from God to suggest the error of our ways?
morality has no meaning in a secular system. People’s experience leads them to conflicting actions and there is no secular way to resolve the dilemma.
What nonsense. New moral contradictions arise on a daily basis but I am not aware of any country which turns to the bible for revelatory guidance.
If we were true to our “evolution” roots, we would kill off the indigent, infirmed and those who inhibit the survival of the strongest.
Just like European christian invaders killed off the indigenous populations of North and South America?
If you knew a little more of the ToE you would know that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Nowhere does the theory require the elimination of weaker members of the human species. Indeed, if you watch a few nature films you will see that animal societies tend to protect their own. That is why you should never kill a wasp for fear of the mass retribution of his mates.
In a herd of wildebeest there will always be some old and weak. It is other animal species which take them out and not the stronger members of the herd. Is the herd demonstrating considered moral behaviour when it acts to defend its weaker members from attacks by lions or is it something more instinctual?
Dennett tries to explain morality as an evolving meme. Allister mcgrath accurately
In your humble opinion?
pointed out that dennett’s idea could be nothing more than a meme itself which brings the issue back to square one; morality must come from a transcendent moral anchor.
So why has it taken 6,000 years (minimum) to get to a westernised system of law? Isn't such slow progress more indicative of an evolving realisation than a sudden revelation of a new paradigm?
trae,
Part 2:
additionally, the societies that have the least human rights violations are in the west and are much more Christianized. Does that mean they are more “evolved”?
I suggest you compare the prison statistics both of the religious make-up of the American prison populations but also the comparison between incarceration rates in America compared to more secular Europe. You might also like to compare gun ownership statistics and murder rates between Christianised America and secular societies.
Back in the 18c in christian Britain we used to hang children. What sudden revelations were received from God to suggest the error of our ways?
morality has no meaning in a secular system. People’s experience leads them to conflicting actions and there is no secular way to resolve the dilemma.
What nonsense. New moral contradictions arise on a daily basis but I am not aware of any country which turns to the bible for revelatory guidance.
trae,
Part 3:
If we were true to our “evolution” roots, we would kill off the indigent, infirmed and those who inhibit the survival of the strongest.
Just like European christian invaders killed off the indigenous populations of North and South America?
If you knew a little more of the ToE you would know that it is descriptive and not prescriptive. Nowhere does the theory require the elimination of weaker members of the human species. Indeed, if you watch a few nature films you will see that animal societies tend to protect their own. That is why you should never kill a wasp for fear of the mass retribution of his mates.
In a herd of wildebeest there will always be some old and weak. It is other animal species which take them out and not the stronger members of the herd. Is the herd demonstrating considered moral behaviour when it acts to defend its weaker members from attacks by lions or is it something more instinctual?
Dennett tries to explain morality as an evolving meme. Allister mcgrath accurately
In your humble opinion?
pointed out that dennett’s idea could be nothing more than a meme itself which brings the issue back to square one; morality must come from a transcendent moral anchor.
So why has it taken 6,000 years (minimum) to get to a westernised system of law? Isn't such slow progress more indicative of an evolving realisation than a sudden revelation of a new paradigm?
You don’t know what I understand and what I don’t. you may not have been told this before but, these comments are called ad hominem.
HA! Yes, I seem to remember hearing something about that.
This is why we're screwed, ladies and gentlemen. Breed 'em out of the genome. It's our only hope.
Apologies for the multiple posts. The original post put up an error message a couple of times so I broke the post into a number of shorter sections one of which also produced an error message but it seems that all posting attempts were actually successful.
That's what happens when you rely unquestioningly on authority (Blogger in this case).
I'm told that God doesn't send anyone to hell; people damn themselves freely. They love the darkness more than the light. They reject the blood of the savior.
So, when six million Jews were slaughtered in Hitler's death camps, they awoke from their hell on earth and found themselves in the eternal darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. And upon arrival, they said to themselves "Yes, this is where we want to be!"
When a gay teen in a small town, who everyday is harassed and abused for being a "fag," takes his own life, he wakes up in the everlasting fire and says "Yes, this is the eternity I desire!"
When the Muslim woman, after a long life of total submission to her God and her husband's backhand, passes from this vail of tears and finds herself next to the worm that dieth not, she proclaims "This is the reward I have sought!"
Does such nonsense need refutation?
Also, Nietzsche is helpful here:
"It is possible that under the holy fable and travesty of the life of Jesus there is hidden one of the most painful cases of the martyrdom of KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LOVE: the martyrdom of the most innocent and most craving heart, that never had enough of any human love, that DEMANDED love, that demanded inexorably and frantically to be loved and nothing else, with terrible outbursts against those who refused him their love; the story of a poor soul insatiated and insatiable in love, that had to invent hell to send thither those who WOULD NOT love him--and that at last, enlightened about human love, had to invent a God who is entire love, entire CAPACITY for love--who takes pity on human love, because it is so paltry, so ignorant! He who has such sentiments, he who has such KNOWLEDGE about love--SEEKS for death!--But why should one deal with such painful matters? Provided, of course, that one is not obliged to do so" (Beyond Good and Evil, 269).
Chris, of course it's nonsense. Utter nonsense. And does not hold up theologically either. If the Bible is based on retributive justice (that is, sin must be punished because it deserves punishment), then no such thing as humans sending themselves there. Here's an essay from Former Fundy blog that explains everything in detail:
Retributive Justice, Hell and the Atonement
Sorry, Errkki, there appears to be a problem in pulling up the blog.
Off the top of my head, many groups feel they have been wronged in our society, and because of justice, they seek retribution. Such diverse demands for justice is tearing our country apart, because of "collective" grievances.
I think the only answer is for people to quite identifying on what their "collective identity" demands, i.e. their distinctives, as "liberty" is the only solution of "atonement". But, liberty must be the ultimate value, and some cultures do not prioritize liberty. But, liberty is the only way of "atonement'.
I meant to say, collectives must stop identifying on their collective grievances, not the collective distinctives...
And liberty must be defined by "lawful" co-existance, allowing for diversity of opinion and conviction...
Angie, just lose the quote marks from the links when you click on it, it should appear nicely. My bad that I didn't pay more attention to it.
Link again about retributive justice & Hell, to provide food for tought for both Atheists and Christians alike.
Heh. I'm told we are all offered the free gift of salvation; it's up to us to accept or reject the one who can save us from God's wrath (sorry, "justice"). And God desires all to be saved.
If one (one that has heard the gospel and rejected it, that is)has a choice**, then one is still choosing one's destiny, though the choice is available because of "grace." It still amounts to one choosing hell over heaven, which is very odd.
**The Calvinist avoids this absurdity; God makes the choice for the individual. If that's where you're coming from, I don't have much to say.
If you must, just substitute "people damn themselves freely" with "people freely reject what save them from damnation" and you'll see the point remains.
Either way, Erkki (I just realized you were the author of the original quote), I'm with you. Vengeance is the heart of hell and ultimately, you might say, Christianity. "Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. Our Lord, come!" (1 Cor. 16:22)
"And God desires all to be saved."
And this muddles it up even more! Is God willing, but not able to save all? Well, he's not truly omnipotent then. Is God able, but not willing to save all? Well, he's a tyrant then. Is he both able and willing? Well, this further begs the question: is Hell just temporary, even though the Bible seemingly says it's eternal? Notice how I didn't mention the option "neither willing nor able to save all", because surely, such being is not God, but an incompetent douchebag. ;)
Paul Rinzler
trae, we don't have sufficient information because we can't comprehend an infinity.
We don't have to comprehend infinity to know that God has revealed Himself.
Evolution doesn't say that members of a species must kill the weak. it says that genetic improvements, in the context of a particular environment, will tend to survive into succeeding generations.
"must kill" and "do nothing to prevent the death of" in regards to the weak seem to have little practical difference. Regardless, my point is that when two secular ethics cause conflicting actions, there is no naturalistic way to resolve the dilemma.
Samphire
As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, are we to believe that the Isrealites wandered the desert for 40 years without any societal rules until Moses went up a mountain to collect a couple of stones - how banal?
It is possible that the Hebrews were already practicing them in some form or fashion and Moses' meeting with God just codified them.
They had just left Egypt (supposedly), an ancient culture which could not have existed without morality akin to the Ten Commandments.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. A society most certainly can exist without something like them
The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to get it right. You imply that they have not yet managed it. So where does your particular superior morality come from?
i'm merely pointing out what should be obvious. If the pope's status is questionable (which it is), then so is your conclusion.
Now where have all dem injuns gone? Not to mention the buffalo and the hunting grounds.
you can't seriously think this is analogous to what's gone on in the societies i cited.
I suggest you compare the prison statistics both of the religious make-up of the American prison populations but also the comparison between incarceration rates in America compared to more secular Europe.
My statement was about the west, not between western societies. Regardless, even though europe is slightly more secular than america, it is still very christianized in comparison to the east and has flourished accordingly.
You might also like to compare gun ownership statistics and murder rates between Christianised America and secular societies.
What are these secular societies you keep referring to? Second, what's wrong with gun ownship?
Back in the 18c in christian Britain we used to hang children. What sudden revelations were received from God to suggest the error of our ways?
Was hanging a result of christ's teachings or was it more of a political, social, legal issue?
New moral contradictions arise on a daily basis but I am not aware of any country which turns to the bible for revelatory guidance.
This response didn't address the point. There is no secular way to resolve the dilemma between conflicting ethics.
Just like European christian invaders killed off the indigenous populations of North and South America?
The same tactic. You may not realize this but you are defending your position by attacking another. All beliefs have people who have done bad things. The point is whether their actions are compatible with their beliefs or not. In the case you cited, the answer is no which brings us back to the secular moral dilemma.
In your humble opinion?
It's not an opinion. Dennett even agreed with him in a postmodern attempt to show that memes exist.
So why has it taken 6,000 years (minimum) to get to a westernised system of law? Isn't such slow progress more indicative of an evolving realisation than a sudden revelation of a new paradigm?
Social legality and jurisprudence are not constructed in a vacuum. They have to be based on some ethic. So what you're referring to is the development of the social aspect of the ethic, not the foundational beliefs of the ethic themselves. Those have been around such as the value of all people which nontheism cannot lay claim to.
Samphire
As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, are we to believe that the Isrealites wandered the desert for 40 years without any societal rules until Moses went up a mountain to collect a couple of stones - how banal?
It is possible that the Hebrews were already practicing them in some form or fashion and Moses' meeting with God just codified them.
They had just left Egypt (supposedly), an ancient culture which could not have existed without morality akin to the Ten Commandments.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. A society most certainly can exist without something like them
The Catholic Church has had 2,000 years to get it right. You imply that they have not yet managed it. So where does your particular superior morality come from?
i'm merely pointing out what should be obvious. If the pope's status is questionable (which it is), then so is your conclusion.
Now where have all dem injuns gone? Not to mention the buffalo and the hunting grounds.
you can't seriously think this is analogous to what's gone on in the societies i cited.
I suggest you compare the prison statistics both of the religious make-up of the American prison populations but also the comparison between incarceration rates in America compared to more secular Europe.
My statement was about the west, not between western societies. Regardless, even though europe is slightly more secular than america, it is still very christianized in comparison to the east and has flourished accordingly.
trae:
We don't have to comprehend infinity to know that God has revealed Himself.That wasn't the issue. It wasn't the issue whether we need to know infinity to know that God has revealed himself.
The issue was whether it is reasonable to require a finite being to make a decision about something infinite. If the finite being cannot comprehend infinity, the being cannot make an informed decision. There is no way I can truly understand the implications and consequences of a decision that has infinite ramifications if I cannot comprehend an infinity, much less an infinity of torture.
trae, are you saying that there is no conceivable naturalistic way to resolve the dilemna, or all naturalistic ways are illogical, or that they don't, in empirical fact, even exist, or some combination? I need clarification on what you mean when you say "there is no" naturalistic way.
trae norsworthy;
What exactly is that you "know" about "infinite"? Note I'm not asking you what you "believe" it is. "Infinity" is something inherently impossible for us--finite beings--to comprehend thus utterly beyond our cognitive limitation to define. So anything that you or anyone else pretend to know or speculate (including the so-called "infinite punishment) about this deity that is thought of
as "infinite," is then presumptuous
and self-deceptive. I'm not exactly
"rejecting" your or any one else's
god, I'm rejecting a proposition that presupposes a god--in this case the Christian god--for which no empirical evidence has been ever
presented to me or any one that I know of. That is your "belief," not
mine. I have no obligation to love, submit or demonstrate any form of subservient behavior toward
an [idea] which speculates on the
possibility of a supreme deity that weather-cock atop of
"creation."
And the only foothold of the god-idea is a)"faith"--an incoherent abstract concept enthralled in mysticism and lots of lexical bullshit, b)66 books written somewhere in the desert by more than 40 strangers who we don't know
who the f**k they were and what state of mind they were in; translated from Aramic into Greek,
into Hebrew, into Latin, then into
English, revised multiple times, and made into more "versions" I would care to count; then stitched together at the request of a sick mind Roman emperor who had his own
vested interest in it, and c)lots of special pleadings and circular
reasoning by impostors and charlatans pretending to know something about the ultimate reality.
"As we speak, christians are fighting for liberty and equality on probably every continent and they have been doing so for centuries."
A self-delusive inane diatribe from
a helpless presumptuous charlatan!
"When the missiomaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said: 'Let us close our eyes and pray.' We closed
our eyes, and when we did open them, we had the Bible and they had
the land."
-Desmond Tutu.
Shorn of this pretentious window-dressing, the exercise of this blatant lie amounts to no more than smuggling in the backdoor the garbage that has been kicked out from the front.
The merchants of the Big Lie that Christianity is and has always been, were able to sell their goods over a large part of the world and for a long time. Not because they possessed any superior
skill but because they concentrated
on assembling big arsenals, floating big fleets, and marshalling big battalions to terrorise the skeptical or the unwilling buyers.
Luke 14:24
"Go out into the highways and among the hedges, and compel people
to come in."
And this was for a very long time the only way they knew of increasing the number of their clients. Had they not been exposed
for what they are, they would not
have willingly renounced this method.
There has been enormous organized
efforts by this creed to give its institution and the way they have
conducted their affairs, a decorous and noble image and a sense of remarkable accomplishment
in the welfare of men. But the reality of its legacy testifies to
the contrary. It has been religion, in fact, a very instrumental viaduct employed by the oppressor to carry out the plot against the poor, gullible and ignorant. Yes, it has been religion that further perpetuates
what it is abviously a crime, by
fostering a doctrine which has been worked out in comformity to the needs of the oppressor. This sham doctrine impresses upon the
oppressed gullible the idea that any struggle to change their plight is useless and that, in fact, they should rejoice in their
predicament because it has been
"divinely ordained," and they would get a reward [after they die]. Then "charity" is touted as the greatest virtue. But charity does not have within its scope of operation to eradicate the forces
that create the need for "charity"-
the only workable mean left for them to gain huge number of converts in extremely poor countries.
Paul Rinzler said...
If the finite being cannot comprehend infinity, the being cannot make an informed decision.
…Unless you know what you need to know, which in our case, we do. To refute this, you would have to show that we don’t know what we need to know or that God is intentionally withholding pertinent information, thus creating an unfair judgment. What’s worse for your position is that you are not only saying that it’s not the case, you’re saying it can’t possibly be the case. This is even more difficult to substantiate because it is the equivalent of saying that an omnipotent God is incapable of giving us the information we need to make an informed decision; that He is incapable of revealing Himself in an acceptable way.
trae, are you saying that there is no conceivable naturalistic way to resolve the dilemna, or all naturalistic ways are illogical, or that they don't, in empirical fact, even exist, or some combination?
Each of these are true in a certain sense. They don’t exist and they are illogical. Obviously, the secular ethicist is going to object (on the grounds that secular ethics actually exist for this very reason) but, even the objection itself has no merit because they don't even pretend to be prescriptive for all people. That exemplifies the conceptual problem. evidentially, the preponderance of different ethical systems illuminates the lack of authority any of them maintain. In this sense, not only are they illogical, they are ultimately illusory. Having said that, there are times when secular ethics echo the biblical ethic. In these cases, they seem logical and practical but they're really a shadow of actual morality.
thanks for the insightful comments.
Charles said...
anything that you or anyone else pretend to know or speculate about this deity that is thought of as "infinite," is then presumptuous and self-deceptive.
I agree, with the exception of what has been revealed to us.
I'm rejecting a proposition that presupposes a god--in this case the Christian god--for which no empirical evidence has been ever presented to me or any one that I know of.
What empirical evidence would convince you?
That is your "belief," not mine.
We'll have to agree to disagree. What you just stated is most certainly a positive assertion for naturalism, that there is nothing supernatural.
And the only foothold of the god-idea is a)"faith"--an incoherent abstract concept enthralled in mysticism and lots of lexical bullshit,
That is not the only "foothold" of the god-idea and it is not only rooted in mysticism. Furthermore, it's no more faith than atheism.
b)66 books written somewhere in the desert by more than 40 strangers who we don't know who the f**k they were
In the NT, we have a pretty good idea of almost all of them. Regardless, anonymous authors don't detract from the historical reliability anyway.
translated from Aramic into Greek, into Hebrew, into Latin, then into English, revised multiple times, and made into more "versions" I would care to count;
Is this a problem?
then stitched together at the request of a sick mind Roman emperor who had his own vested interest in it,
the council you're referring to merely codified what was already accepted as canon. The debates were about fringe movements and the writings about them.
c)lots of special pleadings
Like what?
Charles said...
circular reasoning
All reasoning is ultimately circular
A self-delusive inane diatribe from a helpless presumptuous charlatan!
So you're denying what is well-documented?
"When the missiomaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said: 'Let us close our eyes and pray.' We closed our eyes, and when we did open them, we had the Bible and they had the land." -Desmond Tutu.
Even if such acts were committed by christians, is that something in keeping with Jesus' teachings or against?
The merchants of the Big Lie that Christianity is and has always been, were able to sell their goods over a large part of the world and for a long time. Not because they possessed any superior skill but because they concentrated on assembling big arsenals, floating big fleets, and marshalling big battalions to terrorise the skeptical or the unwilling buyers.
Typical selectivity when it comes to history. What movement in history is responsible for more good than christianity (schools, universities, charities, ministries, missions, hospitals, philanthropies, trusts, etc.)? what religion has had more people suffer and die for others because of their religion?
But the reality of its legacy testifies to the contrary.
We'll have to agree to disagree because historical fact is not on your side. The good that christianity has done not only far outweighs any bad, it is also demonstrable and quantifiable.
the poor, gullible and ignorant.
Some of the most brilliant people in the history of the world have been followers of christ.
This sham doctrine impresses upon the oppressed gullible the idea that any struggle to change their plight is useless and that, in fact, they should rejoice in their predicament because it has been "divinely ordained," and they would get a reward [after they die].
You might not realize this but even from the time of the first christians, there have been wealthy followers of christ. Nowhere in the bible does it oppose wealth.
But charity does not have within its scope of operation to eradicate the forces that create the need for "charity"- the only workable mean left for them to gain huge number of converts in extremely poor countries.
You may not realize that christians send literally millions and millions of dollars in aid to the poor without ever asking for anything in return. Millions of Christians have been willing to go to their death to help fellow human beings improve their lives. Again, this is demonstrable and quantifiable. Your entire post is an exercise in criticizing something you do not understand. You have consistently mischaracterized christianity and christians. I suspect the reason why is because you need them in order to perpetuate your ignorance.
Trae,
You cannot make absolute claims about the "good", because secularists have also done good, whether that be in service or giving. "Good" is defined apart from God.
What qualifies a person as a Chrisitan in your opinion? Whatever qualification you make, there are many other opinions, that are based on "just as much evidence".
Revelation is not reason. Revelation begins in faith. Science begins in reason/observation. Some who have sought to affirm "the moral influence" theory of the atonement suppose that Jesus' life to those he ministered to, were the ones who came to understand themselves and "the story" in a different way from Judiasm. This would underline the secular theory of moral development, through mentorship, and the "spiritual" theory of "God enfleshed" or the 'Logos incarnate". Jesus was a man who did a "reforming" of Judiasm. Paul and the Church Fathers gave Christ's life its theology.
Such Christianizing of "the secular" is what has happened throughout Church History. Pagan ideas and concepts were useful for "embellishing the story". This was what the Hellenizing influence on Judiasm did. And Paul was the "apostle" to bring that message. "He" was useful to Church authorities to sustain their power over men and widen their influence. Christians were part of the Body of Christ if they came to Church, confessed the "sin", and partook of communion.
These "truths" happen to be about secular theories via the disciplines, as really there are no "secular" or "sacred" theories, in naturalistic claims.
Not much else to say, except that you have chosen your "stake in the argument". And all I can say is "God-speed".
trae wrote:
you would have to show that we don’t know what we need to know
I'm more than happy to oblige. We don't know what an infinity is. We can't comprehend it. We can talk about it, we can write equations about it, but we can't really know what infinity is, much less an infinity of torture or agony, depending on your definition of hell.
Look up into the night sky, and realize how futile the attempt is to truly comprehend and grasp how distant those stars are, how awful the gap is, how stupendously large the universe is, and you haven't even begun to approach how big infinity is. That's how ill-equipped we are to comprehend infinity.
Regarding the other part of your comment, I'm not sure to what it refers, because my comment to which your comment is a reply referred to an earlier comment of yours that appears to have been deleted by you.
trae wrote:
All reasoning is ultimately circular
So, you'd agree that the circularity of
A=A
doesn't differ in any significant regard from
if A=B, and B= C, then A=C
?
Angie Van De Merwe
You cannot make absolute claims about the "good"
You wouldn’t even know what good was without an absolute referent. This is evident in several ways. One way is to observe that what one person considers good conflicts with what another person considers good. How can you resolve the dilemma? Also, many eastern religions/philosophies consider good and evil illusory. Therefore, actions merely appear good. Without an absolute referent (which eastern systems don’t have), they have abandoned the idea of trying to discern what is good.
because secularists have also done good, whether that be in service or giving.
But what you say that they have done, not all secularists would agree that it is good. That’s the dilemma. Furthermore, we know that even if there was a case where everyone agreed that the action was good, it would merely be an approximation of what real good is. a monkey can reproduce an action but has no idea what it actually means. In a naturalistic paradigm, altruism makes no sense. It’s every man for himself, let the strongest survive.
What qualifies a person as a Chrisitan in your opinion?
For starters, romans 10:9
Whatever qualification you make, there are many other opinions, that are based on "just as much evidence".
I know of no christians who are confused about the verse I cited.
Revelation is not reason. Revelation begins in faith.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Revelation is evidential. If God reveals Himself, people experience that. it’s not faith at all. Faith is something totally different.
Science begins in reason/observation.
No, it doesn’t. In order for science to be coherent, formulae must exist first (scientific methodologies). Those formulae are outworkings of fundamental beliefs that are outlined in one’s philosophy of science. once the groundwork is laid, then a scientist conducts science accordingly. This is exemplified in the scientific maxim “all observation is theory laden”. Scientists are people and people approach observations from presuppositions and biases.
Such Christianizing of "the secular" is what has happened throughout Church History. Pagan ideas and concepts were useful for "embellishing the story". This was what the Hellenizing influence on Judiasm did.
This is a misconception that several historical experts and philosophers have clarified. If the jews were incorporating Hellenistic elements into their culture, they were terrible at it. Judaism is vehemently opposed to all things pagan and looks nothing like Hellenism. What you are describing is out of the second quest for the historical Jesus. The third quest has accurately pointed out myriad shortcomings with second quest thinking. NT ideas were not retrojections of Mediterranean philosophy into the Christ story. Jesus’ ministry was thoroughgoing Judaism, obviously with a greater goal. The idea that 2nd and 3rd century Christians reworked the history of Jesus just doesn’t work unless historiography is completely turned upside down, which the jesus seminar has precisely done.
And Paul was the "apostle" to bring that message. "He" was useful to Church authorities to sustain their power over men and widen their influence.
Someone’s been reading dan brown novels. There certainly have been people in history who expanded on Christian doctrines for political and financial gain. However, this doesn’t mean that the history of christianity is based on such machinations. Christians were sufficiently dispersed and established such that no one group of people could co-opt it for subversive purposes.
Trae,
"Good" is defined differently because of different purposes, values, and interests.These concerns of value are the referents, if you will, as "good" must be defined. "Good" is not an abstract in one's mind.
For instance, the psychologist, the military officier, and the businessman have different "goals". And many times different goals or purposes are at odds with one another. But, different purposes and goals, are what living in a free society is about. 'Good" is defined by what outcome, or focus of concern one has....
The psychologist is concerned for the human as a person, and for thier flourishing and what might be inhibiting psychological health. The military officier has a duty to serve his country's interests and lead those who are dependent on him. The businessman is interested in market, product, and profit,.
Any of us make our choice and response based on what our ultimate ends are.
I will not argue with you about your religion/faith.
Angie Van De Merwe
"Good" is defined differently because of different purposes, values, and interests.
this utilitarianism doesn't really solve the problem. we're still left at a moral impasse. what do we do when one person says action a is immoral when another person says it's moral?
These concerns of value are the referents, if you will, as "good" must be defined.
that's the lie that postmodernism has duped people into believing. i feel like this is an adequate response
http://thegdebate.blogspot.com/2010/08/l-25.html
Good" is defined by what outcome, or focus of concern one has
this absolutely cannot be the case when that template produces mutually exclusive outcomes. good now has no meaning. worse, any one action can be variously interpreted by multiple people.
Off the top of my head (which isn't too deep :-)), it would be easy to suggest that "God" is the basis of morality. This is a traditional understanding of morality. Such understanding is what religions "do".
But, if one wants to base their understanding of morality in science, then there are other ways of answering (?) the "problem".
Evolution suggests that government is needed to maintain social order. Laws are created by men to maintain such order. Humans are subject to their cultural referents of law (if there culture is an "ordered" one).
But, what of the brain and mind? Is there a universal category that "inhabits" the brain, which is cultivated by one's experience? Some have argued that justice is such a category. But, what is justice?
Justice if NOT just objective, but subjective.
Laws define a given society's values. American values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as it is a 'humane" society that doesn't put "God" at the forefront. Humans are allowed to express their religious convictions however they want.
Our courts decide between parties that have grievances against each other to resolve the "subjective" judgment about justice. (This is NOT to say that what is valued as an absolute in our society, such as murder or stealing is subjectivly evaluated).
It seems there is a "move" to prove God through mathmatical formula, as this would prove in the "order" of the universe. But, I don't think that this is going to be accomplished, unless one wants to dismiss many theories in theoretical physics.
Absolute "order" is militaristic and isn't conducive for human society. It demeans humans to organized commodities, pawns, and limits choice.
Angie Van De Merwe
it would be easy to suggest that "God" is the basis of morality.
If it is right that every culture operate according to what they think is moral then, that itself is an absolute and subject to alternate views such as those that oppose absolutism. Since that is the case, that brings us back to square one where morals aren’t relative.
Your response focused on social ethics and I’m referring to morality. Making a moral judgment about something is an appeal to an extreme. To say it is right or wrong is to compare it to a standard that is not relative, not culturally based. If murder is immoral (which all sane people agree on), then it is wrong for everyone. Otherwise, it is not wrong but merely not recommended.
if one wants to base their understanding of morality in science
Morality is not within the purview of science. science is not applicable to metaphysical matters because they operate outside of the laws that govern the scientific enterprise.
Evolution suggests that government is needed to maintain social order.
This was known well before anyone knew what evolution was.
Absolute "order" is militaristic
This doesn’t have to be the case.
and isn't conducive for human society.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this
It demeans humans to organized commodities, pawns, and limits choice.
This is absolutely untrue, at least of christianity.
Trae,
I said,"This is NOT to say that what is valued as an absolute in our society, such as murder or stealing is subjectivly evaluated)." Whenever one has committed a murder, the courts decide if there was pre-meditation, first-degree or something else. This defines justice in our society. But it does not define justice in societies that are tribally conditioned toward "God's judgment".
Those that are tribalistic are prone to believe in "God's" immennant judgment and themselves as "God's implementors" of that judgement. We see this played out in our society by fundamentalists all the time. God interacts with the world in every detail or has set up a "system" that demands sub-serveience. It is based on a cause and effect thinking about realities, and tragedies in the real world. Everything is referenced back to God; natural disasters, personal failures and difficulties, etc.
Marriage is a social institution that many in the West define differently. Marriage is a legal contract, but what that means varies. It is also the case that polygamy exists in other cultures that define marriage differently.
Science has done research in regards to morality and moral development. In fact, sociologists believe that society "progresses" in three stages; 1.)religion;2.)metaphysical 3.)science. Not everyone agrees with this assessment, though.
As to personal moral development, the conventional level of morality, which is a higher level than the "reward and punishment" level, is where most people function. This is where the church fits. But, while a constitutional government is the objective of society's development. The personal or subjective side is the internalization of those values, where self-government is embraced. This is where character or personality has reached its fullest expression.
btw,
I am seeking to study the political philosophy that has vied for pre-dominance in the West. Morality in the West is understood by law, not by "God".
The Ten Commandments say that "thou shalt not", but God, in the Scripture does not abide by his own standards and he seems to reward those who sometimes don't abide by those standards. This is NOT the understanding of justice the West adheres to. We believe that justice is blind, as all are equal before the law. There is no favoritism, etc.
Law is important because it builds trust about what one can expect in regard to treatment from one's fellow man and one's employer. One can live at peace, because laws are to protect society from disorder...
Angie Van De Merwe
God, in the Scripture does not abide by his own standards and he seems to reward those who sometimes don't abide by those standards.
where is an example of this?
We believe that justice is blind, as all are equal before the law. There is no favoritism, etc.
these ideas that justice is built on, where did they come from?
Angie Van De Merwe
I said,"This is NOT to say that what is valued as an absolute in our society, such as murder or stealing is subjectivly evaluated)."
But this is precisely what postmodernism says; that what a society values is subjectively evaluated. The values are really nothing more than linguistic simulacrum. Therefore, values differ from culture to culture. One problem with this view is that is fails to capture the fact that we intuitively know some things are absolutely immoral. Postmodern semantics and rhetoric don’t solve this problem. another problem with relativistic ethical models is that they are inadequate to express that making a moral judgment on something (it is right or wrong) is an appeal to an extreme, an absolute. Otherwise, there would be no frame of reference with which to make the judgment in the first place.
As to personal moral development, the conventional level of morality, which is a higher level than the "reward and punishment" level, is where most people function.
I’m not sure I would agree with this. there is a great deal of apathy in America right now. postmodernism is very prevalent and people want to be “left alone” to do as they please. Most people feel that the ability to act in any manner should be unfettered. This is much more indicative of ground level morality. Morality is really viewed as it’s immoral to tell others how to act. It’s negative reaction as opposed to a positive affirmation.
while a constitutional government is the objective of society's development. The personal or subjective side is the internalization of those values, where self-government is embraced. This is where character or personality has reached its fullest expression.
This still doesn’t address the dilemma posed by relativist ethics. What happens when the same action is viewed as both moral and immoral by different people? Secular ethics has no way to resolve this situation.
Trae,
Let's begin with the law, as that seems to be your "prejuidice". Are you concerned about absolutes, in principle? Or are you interested in society's maintanence of stability? Or are you concerned over what God might think about certain behavior you deem inappropriate?
What you answer suggests where your personal interests lie, i.e. philosophy, sociology, or religion. And where you begin with your "reason" or mind, is how you will somewhat understand or approach the problem. So, in this sense there is relativity..to one's personal interests..or goals...as to how they are concerned.
I don't see where Americans are dis-interested, but disillusioned and angry. Others are "self-righterously" proclaiming their "victory", while the other side seeks to blame and point fingers...this seems to be the political environment.
When you speak of post-modernity, I would agree if you are talking about relativity when it comes to Constitutionality, or individuals protected by the law. (You might disagree with me here, but you would be in the company who would like for me to say that society is protected by the law.. which comes first, the chicken or the egg? One will always have quandaries when it comes to the indvidual and society, because either way to state it, the other side is true, too..So, I do concur that society should also be protected by the law, but if individuals are not protected and only society, then we have collectivism...and that in political terms is socialism or communism...)
Trae,
Let's begin with the law, as that seems to be your "prejuidice". Are you concerned about absolutes, in principle? Or are you interested in society's maintanence of stability? Or are you concerned over what God might think about certain behavior you deem inappropriate?
What you answer suggests where your personal interests lie, i.e. philosophy, sociology, or religion. And where you begin with your "reason" or mind, is how you will somewhat understand or approach the problem. So, in this sense there is relativity..to one's personal interests..or goals...as to how they are concerned.
I don't see where Americans are dis-interested, but disillusioned and angry. Others are "self-righterously" proclaiming their "victory", while the other side seeks to blame and point fingers...this seems to be the political environment.
When you speak of post-modernity, I would agree if you are talking about relativity when it comes to Constitutionality, or individuals protected by the law. (You might disagree with me here, but you would be in the company who would like for me to say that society is protected by the law.. which comes first, the chicken or the egg? One will always have quandaries when it comes to the indvidual and society, because either way to state it, the other side is true, too..So, I do concur that society should also be protected by the law, but if individuals are not protected and only society, then we have collectivism...and that in political terms is socialism or communism...)
Post a Comment