Printable View
true. but, unlike our friend Russel, I happen to think that morality isn't relative, but instead deterministic in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
for details, see:
Objectivist ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know your last statement was intended humorously, but try and think what the world would be like if people folded in the face of adversity all the time.
I have purposely avoided this thread for some time due to my reluctance to discuss religion and/or politics on forums. However, I do wish to contribute. I always found it hard to believe in God. I relied on facts, science, and objective truth for understanding the happenings of the universe. I even had envy for those that believed in God, for I felt that they had hope or comfort in their lives that I could not find. However, something happened to me about three years ago that changed everything. I witnessed something so astonishing and unreal that it jolted my soul. I pondered on this for several months, trying to explain what had happened, but I couldn’t find a practical answer. Although I will not say what it was (because I’m still struggling with it), I will say that I feel as though it was a miracle/divine intervention. I still have some doubts about the Bible and of religious institutions, but this is something that I am still considering. I want to end here by saying that I do believe in God, and for all that’s it worth, I feel grateful and at peace for the first time in my life.
:eek: Hang on now, I haven't said that I believe morality to be relative. That was inferred from what I said (maybe in the creationism thread), but is not entirely what I meant.
Morality ought to be something that is innate and available to all persons with the ability to rationalize. Morality does have objective truths, one of which I firmly believe in is responsibility for one's own actions (i.e. it is always immoral to allow the transferring of guilt/shame/sin/crime/punishment onto a person that did not partake in the action).
Some things are subjective to the context of the situation, like if a doctor has a cure for a disease and only has enough for one person, but must choose between five different people, the morality of his decision is subject to the details about the five people, but it would be objectively immoral to just withold the cure all together.
So in that context, moral bancruptcy has the same meaning and my point holds true; to say that my salvation depends on the murder of another individual is wrong in any context.
sorry russell, wasn't trying to over-generalize.
If you're born a slave, someone might have to die for you to free you
"to say that my salvation depends on the murder of another individual is wrong in any context."
Unless it's true, in which case it isn't wrong. Look at what happened during the US civil war. Many slaves' salvation did depend on lives being taken.
Or do you mean morally wrong? In which case then what is morally wrong about someone else willingly laying down their life in order to try to save yours? The only moral wrong is that someone has justified owning you as a slave and that they're willing to kill anyone who tries to save you. It wasn't your fault, but you were powerless to free yourself. Even if you escaped, by law you had to be returned to your owner. Unless of course someone came along with the authority, the will, and the means to enforce a better way
It's not a problem, just wanted to clarify.
The issue certainly has some subtle details that can't always be articulated in their true form.
First off, yes, I meant morally wrong, we're having a discussion of morality not of factual events.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Secondly, the issue of morality arises when you say "this man died for your freedom" under the assumption that I was a slave, a notion imposed by the system that that man promulgated.
To continue your analogy of slavery, it would be as if the freedom fighters had enslaved the slaves, then died to free them again. The slaves, at that point, owe the dead freedom fighters no gratitude.
Religion perpetuates the idea of original sin, it's not imposed by an outside source.
(besides that, we're back to forming opinions of what an unknowable entity wants and believes, futility is really getting a workout on this one. ;))
Either you were a slave or you were not regardless of what man promulgatedQuote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
It would be as if your parents had succombed to slavery and then you were born into it
Religion does all kinds of things, but you don't have any control over the choices other people make (try as it might)
But then someone will say, "I shouldn't be a slave just because of someone else's mistakes" and they would be right. I guess other people's choices can negatively affect your life though, whether you like it or not
And yes, this whole thread is a discussion on God, not necessarily a discussion on an unknowable entity. Futility, thy name is internet debates
Not quite right if you are refering to Christianity.Quote:
To continue your analogy of slavery, it would be as if the freedom fighters had enslaved the slaves, then died to free them again. The slaves, at that point, owe the dead freedom fighters no gratitude.
It was (and still is) then man's decision whether to either obey God, or to dissobey God.Quote:
Genesis 2:16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Craig,
Exactly, in the reference frame of Christianity, everyone is born a "slave".
In the reference frame of India untill the mid 1900's (not sure of it's prominence anymore), everyone was born into a caste.
Just because some reference frame makes a claim, it does not make it true. They are both conventional beliefs that are equally unsubstantiated.
Lee,
But the real solution would be to take the high road and absolve everyone because of their innate innocence and offer them support and blessing without the threat of punishment for refusing that support. The fact that it happens in real life does not make it any more unjust.
In the reference frame of humanity, everyone is born a human. Like I mentioned, it isn't man's claim that makes it true. Either it's true or it isn't, and it really isn't up to us to decide the truth, but it is up to us to decide what we will believe is true
And then others will decide to believe there is no absolute truth too - there's another reference frame :)
A different problem is that there are different beliefs on the subject by different Christian groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and as such, the views of the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and academic scholars may vary greatly from the Orthodox viewpoint.
Here is a snippet from the ubiquitous Wiki:
In other words, it is pretty much in our nature to be strong headed, and not willing to submit ourselves to God.Quote:
Original sin
To place the term original sin in context: God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of man to the "flawed" mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that Original Sin. Because we participate in humanity, we share in the sin of Adam because like him, we are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.
However, this view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, we inherit the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference came about because Augustine interpreted a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 as meaning that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that we all sin as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. Therefore, the Orthodox Church does not teach that we are born deserving to go to hell and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that result from the Augustinian understanding of Original Sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.
In the book Ancestral Sin, John S. Romanides addresses the concept of Original sin, which he understands to mean that people under ancestral sin, inherit the sins of previous generations. Father Romanides asserts that this is not a tenet of the Orthodox faith. Father Romanides works out through scripture and patristics that original sin is not a doctrine of the church and is not cohesive with the Eastern Orthodox faith. In his view, the doctrine of Original Sin is an invention of later church fathers such as Saint Augustine. In the realm of ascetics it is by choice not birth that one takes on the sins of the world.[6]
Why would God make us with free will, and thus strong headed, etc?
The way I view it: Do you want someone to love you because they choose to love you, or because you force them to?
Oh, he may not be forcing us with a gun to our heads, but eternal punishment is a pretty strong motivator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
My point is that if you want someone to make an objective decision, and thus a truly honest decision, you can't offer rewards, nor threaten punishment.
Giving someone your love because they offer to pay you for it isn't an objective decision and isn't a good thing for that matter, rather the converse is true.
Again, there are many possible interpretations of what "eternal punishment" is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Let's say "paradise" is eternity with God himself. And "eternal punishment" is total separation from God for eternity.
What if it is as simple as the decision to either want to be with Him, or wanting nothing to do with Him? And the choice is in our hands, not His?
doesn't really matter, the implied connotation is that it is an undesirable outcome, and thus can only be regarded as coercion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
ever hear of a guy named Jonathan Edwards? :roflmao
It also depends on the image you choose for God.
I personally am not fond of many characteristics of the gods in history thus far, sometimes they're fairly petty.
Though there's a new kid on the block that has caught my attention, his is the way of noodly goodness and is covered in delicious maranara sauce. I could spend an eternity in the company of His Noodliness!
RAmen!
:D
Russell, every decision has consequences attached to it, and when they are moral consequences then are they rewards and punishments? You can make your own choices regardless of external circumstances, unless you truly are just a collection of exclusively behaviorally responsive tissues and electrical pulses
I can be honest regardless of consequences, and I don't see why anyone couldn't be. Even under extreme conditions I would have to relinquish my own will before I could be forced to agree in my heart to one thing or another.
Is free will an illusion?
Marinara sauce on ramen?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Now THAT is sacriledge!
In Fukuoka Japan, they have little outdoor stalls/booths that serve up awesome authentic ramen to fortify business men intent on an evening of drinking..er, I mean business discussions!
Here's me at such an establishment (hint: I'm the gaijin...)
I wasn't wearing my reading glasses.... at first i thought it said noody goddess. I was attentive for a brief moment.
Ahhhhh another brother of the FSM!Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Glad to have you!
Also, I'm sorry guys but I had to add some gasoline to the fire...
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca the Younger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
Well, FSM is the god of all things Noodly. His Noodliness cares not of the variety we choose to indulge in. Now where's my eyepatch?
RAmen!
(R-Amen! ;))
That would be because I do not believe in inherited sin. I think it's a FALSE concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Consequenses of sin are inherited but sin itself is NOT something that passes on from a father (or mother) to his children.
Not in my form of Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
I feel that we turn ourselves into slaves because of the wrong choices we make. We mess up and need help to pull ourselves out of it. That help came in the form of Jesus Christ.
Does that also change the implications of not being baptized in your religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
Because it does in catholicism (which is the local flavor of christianity where I cam from) and I've always found the catholic doctrine of inherited sin (and the implications of baptism or lack thereof) unconvincing.
I may be wrong, but I believe the concept of inherited sin is similar to the old saying, " the apple doesn't fall far from the tree! Now, doesn't that make a little more sense?
That may be your idea or mine, but under catholic doctrine, inherited sin is a pretty basic concept that means that if you are not baptized, there is no chance of salvation. Baptism washes away that sin and gives you a chance for salvation.
During WW2, anyone who qualified was allowed to baptize newborn kids to make sure that they got their ticket to heaven if they died before they could get to a priest (like during an air raid).
When I see my little daughters running around, playing or sleeping, I see pure innocence; a clean slate.
Anyone who tries to tell me that they will miss out on salvation because of their not being baptized is badly misguided imo.
Being baptized as they do in church is only symbolic of what should happen in our hearts! Our very hearts should be baptized in the love of God and filled with the spirit that should guide us the rest of our days! To my mind, this is what is almost complete in a childs heart, and will come to completion as long as we guide our children, and not get in the way of their natural progression to this end!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
Are you available for baby sitting Bruno?;):D:roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
So have I. And yes. That does mean that the reasons and implications for being baptised are different from what they are in the catholic church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
The youngest that anyone can get baptised in or church is 8 years old. Why? (well...first of all because wel believe God said so but beside that:) because baptism is something that is a covenant (like a contract) between people and God. If the person didn't choose for it then the contract is void.
Second of all we believe in the innocense of newborn (and young) children. That means there is no guilt for the sin. Adam is held accountable for his own transgressions and this does not pass on to every man/woman/child that came after him.
JMS' description of the apple falling close to the treev is somewhat close to what I believe but not quite there.
It's more like "if you lite the fuse...thing will explode whether it was you who lit the fuse in the first place or not.". Adam set certain things in motion when he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The results can still be noticed. But that does not mean that we'll be held accountable for it.
(Please note that this is what I understand the doctrine that is taught in our church to be....I might be misstaken here and there, only human afterall)
Perhaps I should explain that my opinions about institutionalized religion stem from the fact that I was a catholic, though my parents were not strict about it.
There are several fundamental concepts in the catholic faith that I've thought long and hard about (and sometimes talked about with devout catholics), and several of them go against everything I hold true. Inherited sin / baptism is one of those things.
Each time I concluded that each of these concepts cannot be true, it was like a domino falling down.
And as with dominos, if the first and fundamental ones start falling, the rest goes down automatically.
And in the end I found catholicism to be a false structure of premises that I don't want to be part of because there was nothing left to believe in, aside from the general mesage in the bible.
From that position, I looked at other religions, and found that they all have mutually exclusive basic concepts. And while I do not kow the details of each, I figured that there is no point in joining a religion if I don't agree with the basics.
So gradually, I found that I don't really need the instituationalization. I cut out the middle man instead.
If I feel like it, I can talk directly with God, however I name him, her, or them. If I pray, I will do it my way.
I figure that if I honestly follow my heart and try to be a decent human being, it'll be allright in the end.
No problem. I'll do it for free even. Travelling will be a killer though. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I see that around me a lot=understandable.
Speaking of fundamental concepts, I am always amazed at the labyrinthine thinking that religion relies on in an attempt at self preservation.
Take the idea of "Sin."
Guilt is the device without which sin could not exist. Why do we feel guilt?
Religion however, has used guilt to build some mighty big and long lasting battlements!
Sin is a silly idea, as are most of the mechanisms used by the worlds religions, to control it's constituents.
The fortress can be toppled easily when one exposes the basic pretense of what I like to call the "Imaginarium."
"Then, in a poof of logic, he ceased to exist!" Douglas Adams;)
I don't know what all the different flavors of Christianity are, or how much this really relates to the topic at hand about God in general, but here is one of the things the Christian Bible has to say about inherited sin
mischievous, it's true that without being told what sin is, you won't feel very guilty at all. But how can that be an argument against sin itself? Without guilt, you may not recognize sin, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A blind man can argue all day long that light doesn't existQuote:
before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
This is the core principle that every good person should strive for. If it takes religion for you to get there, great! If not, great!Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I posit the idea that guilt, the mechanism the churchmen have preyed upon and labeled it sin, is a learned behavior. We categorize someone without guilt is a psychopath. However, you don't need religion or an invisible construct to govern a society or individual.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
One can feel guilt without having been raised in a religion or knowledge of religion.
Sin does not exist. It's only a concept.
Simple answer.
You must be taught something is wrong. You are born an atheist. You must be taught a belief system, it doesn't come naturally. You must be taught about guilt, or in the christian vernacular, sin.
Sin is not like light, you cannot prove sin, or God for that mater, exists. Unlike light, big difference.
Well, I follow you up to a point, but it breaks down because who taught the first guy to have a belief system? And who taught him? etcQuote:
Originally Posted by mischievous
And if someone came up with it on his or her own, why did they do that? If it was self-taught, then why would that person have any reason to feel guilt?
The light analogy proves a different point though. You cannot prove to the blind man that light is visible or that visibility even exists unless he chooses to believe what you say about it. He has no way to observe the visible spectrum that you claim is visible. Even if he did have an indirect method, he'd still have to believe his own observations and inferences
Everything you and I have proof of are really just concepts we've chosen to believe but we're not right just because we've accepted the evidence we have as proof
Ahh the good old first cause argument. That doesn't hold water for long, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Your position that someone couldn't have come up with this on their own is only valid if you can point to a single point of origin. Are you saying that man just suddenly appeared and that these ideas were impressed upon him from an outside source? Hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar.:rolleyes:
I can prove light exists to a blind man easy. Stand him out in the sun long enough, and he'll get burned!
He is blind. We are talking about a sensing organ. You don't have a guilt organ or a god shaped hole.
I can prove more than just concepts and so can you. The Philosophers game of concepts and in-substantiation is just that, a game. The universe will continue to exist long after we are gone my friend.
I'm not sure I understand your last statement fully though.:shrug: Are you saying you cannot ever trust any evidence? Ever?
Put him ina darkened oven, and he will also get burned....:rolleyes:Quote:
I can prove light exists to a blind man easy. Stand him out in the sun long enough, and he'll get burned!