<strong>Christianity is unique in that it is the only religion of the three to believe that Jesus is both the son of and a part of God.
Not all christians believe in the trinity. Mainly catholics and other denominations. Many believe that God and the holy spirit are one but Jesus is another entity entirely. There is so much confusion in christianity it's hard to make a general statement about the ideology as a whole. It's one of the reasons I have rejected all but the most basic principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outsider,
I am starting to get a different picture of you. But that is not the point of my post.
It is true that there are many different beleifs in the "Christian" faith. Unfortunately anyone can call themselves a "Christian" and for the most part it has become a meaningless label. In fact, even calling youself a Catholic or a protestant or Southern baptist still does not do what people are looking for. It does not clarify what you do or do not beleive. I think a person saying that they are a "Born Again beleiver" says more than I am a Christian, to those in the faith. But it is pretty much meaningless jabber to non-beleivers.
What are the basic principles that you have not rejected out of curiosity? (since i am sure it would be near impossible to list all the ones you have rejected. )
In the just after the beginning there were men (and men means men and women)
and men were like unto beasts
they were chaotic and lawless.
Then, the Thunder made them afraid.
they saw that thunder was like a mad father and they said there is God and all nature is animated with God, and he can be angry and roar.
Some of the men were bigger and stronger than the others: they liked the women and the food, and liked the others to get these things for them.
They said that the Thunder demanded that things work accordingly, or the Thunder would roar.
what was called 'according' slowly changed from outright slavery to practical means of providing for the strong by maintaining the weak through rules.
These rules were first organized by the mediated rule of the 'thunder' as told to the weak by the strong: in other words, the strong told the weak what Thunder meant: the strong became the priests.
The priests managed to get taken care of without doing physical work but by making sure the thunder was happy. If the weather was bad it was not the strong people's fault, no, they blamed the weak: the weak were guilty, it was the strong men's role to tell them that.
They did not live according to the 'rules' set by the Thunder as told to them by the strong, so the weather went foul and people went hungry -so the strong said to their 'people'.
The Thunder was also the voice of the saddness of life: it took everything from the poor in the form of passing time (all things fade and leave): and in its place the thunder said: if you live by the codes then the strong will look kindly upon you: over time this changed to: if you live by the codes all that was taken will be made whole: it presupposed that the poor hate this world of fading things: in fact the more they hated it the more they were promised a reward. Trembling and self denial became marks of how good a person was: and how good they were was how well they lived by the codes.
Soon, even the strong forgot that the rules were established for their benefit.
they no longer understood that what they called 'morality' was the solidified codes of conduct established in order to best satisfy them by keeping the weak working and afraid of the Thunder.
But because the codes were hidden they worked: if it were known that the codes were born out of fear, power and the hatred of passing time all centered around the figure behind the Thunder: then they would have to make up their own meanings and descriptions of conduct and values.
But, by the time the people began to see that this might be true, they had allready established a civilization and moral code founded on the denial of this world and fear, they did not know how to make an action valuable in itself>
And this they called Nihilism.
And low the many people thought that Nihilism was despair. Despair, because they didn't know how to hear the Thunder as it used to be heard and didn't know how to live:
and low others felt elated because nothing was true anymore: therefor everything was permitted: if they had the creativity to make.
Anyway.. I had to double post.... inanity intruded
I'm sick of people telling me that morals cannot exist without religion. I am not a believer and I follow a stronger moral code than most Chrisitans that I know! When people say things like that it seems almost like a personal insult. "You dont believe in god, so you must be a souless animal without morals."
I'm one of these annoying people who is utterly grounded in science and has absolutely no belief in anything that cannot be proven. I don't need a mathematical proof for most things, but some kind of grounding in reality helps.
If someone can show me some contemporary evidence that this Jesus guy ever existed, then I could perhaps be persuaded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you find no evidence that Jesus as a man existed you are not looking very hard. Show me contemporary evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, or any other figure that was known to exist around the time of Jesus. Most of your "evidence" would be based on writings or possibly artifacts claimed by archeologists to have belonged to them. The same can be said about Jesus, except of course for the Artifacts (he did not own much after all being a poor carpenter )
<strong>I'm sick of people telling me that morals cannot exist without religion. I am not a believer and I follower a stronger moral code than most Chrisitans that I know! When people say things like that it seems almost like a personal insult. "You dont believe in god, so you must be a souless animal without morals."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone has a soul, and a moral code. The question is, what is that code grounded in? What is to prevent that moral code from shifting with society? That is the question that nobody seems to be able to answer. and befor eyou say that the Bible changes over time too, I disagree. It is translated to make it easier for people to understand in their own language, but there are still copies of origional writings to fall back on if you want to cross check what your bible says today. you just have to translate from the Hebrew (no small task sometimes) or whatever language it happens to be written in.
[quote] What is to prevent that moral code from shifting with society? <hr></blockquote>
Eerything shifts over time. Even if the words were written nowhere but in stone they would still have to be interpretted. And interpretation is absolutely influenced by real and historical conditions.
This is the basis for the understanding of the process of understanding known as "Hermeneutics". A philosophical term which originally derives from the process of understanding biblical texts.
The belief that there is anything in this world that is not subject to interpretatin and therefor is dependant upon historical understandings is misslead.
Even if truth were given to the world in a crystal form we would still have to interpret it according to our experience: this is why the "what the book says I go by" brand of fundamentalism is bunk!
Hey, and read my post above you spiritually lazy bunch of dogmatic crybabies
I agree.... even the moral code of Christians has changed since the early christians. Different cultures see things as morally sound, 50 years ago, Elvis shaking his hips was seen as outrageous!
Eerything shifts over time. Even if the words were written nowhere but in stone they would still have to be interpretted. And interpretation is absolutely influenced by real and historical conditions.
This is the basis for the understanding of the process of understanding known as "Hermeneutics". A philosophical term which originally derives from the process of understanding biblical texts.
The belief that there is anything in this world that is not subject to interpretatin and therefor is dependant upon historical understandings is misslead.
Even if truth were given to the world in a crystal form we would still have to interpret it according to our experience: this is why the "what the book says I go by" brand of fundamentalism is bunk!
Hey, and read my post above you spiritually lazy bunch of dogmatic crybabies </strong><hr></blockquote>
I read your post above. I laughed, and then I went on. I see what your point is, but I did not feel the need to reply. BTW: Did you make that up or copy it?
And to hit your earlier points, I never said that the bible was not open to interpretation, if you read many of my posts here interpretation is a major sticking point. However, at least it is written down.
Go to a car dealership and buy a car. The salesman will agree to whatever you say just to sell you the car. But if you do not write it down on the contract, good luck trying to get it. Even if it is written down clearly it is open to some interpretation and you still may not get everything.
My point, you are right that jsut because it was written does not mean it is not going to shift a bit. Even anchors drag in heavy weather. But if it is not written down, it does not exist at all and if you are not anchored you will be tossed around without any hope of finding your way at all.
(wow, from cave men, to interpretation, to car dealers, to boats. I think I need to sit down )
<strong>I agree.... even the moral code of Christians has changed since the early christians. Different cultures see things as morally sound, 50 years ago, Elvis shaking his hips was seen as outrageous!</strong><hr></blockquote>
And 50 years ago Bill Clinton would have been lynched as well. Your point? What you bring up proves my point beautifully. The ever shifting morals of a society with no anchor.
Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial.
Everyone has a soul, and a moral code. The question is, what is that code grounded in? What is to prevent that moral code from shifting with society? That is the question that nobody seems to be able to answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The strength of our convictions, and belief in ourselves. The same thing that prevents the faith of the religous from changing when challenged.
Not everyone needs to be able to recite chapter and verse from a text in order to maintain or defend their convictions.
So in other words, nothing concrete. Oh well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, I see what you're getting at. OK, as I mentioned earlier, by not ascribing to a single religion, a person is free to draw on all bodies of religion (INCLUDING the Bible), philosophy, literature, science, poetry, and life experiences for his or her morals. I'd list some other specifics, but you'd probably dismiss them anyway as irrelevant, since that seems to be the general thrust of your argument as of late.
[quote] So in other words, nothing concrete. Oh well. <hr></blockquote>
HA! YES!
I know a lot of people hate this theory, but here it goes (please use your imagination):
Nothing is concrete, it is all an unwritten agreement amongst human beings in a society. Can you imagine a society in which something that we take for granted as immoral was okay?
Let's take one of the ten commandments - thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Now what if everyone in our isolated culture thought it was just fine to sleep with everyone else? Children were brought up by the community as a whole. The notion of mother and father was much broader to include all senior men and women. What we believe to be (literally) set in stone is in fact not.
Whether or not you think the above example makes for a great society or not is irrelevant, my point is that morals do not necessarily need to exist as some platonic immutable form. If every human agrees on them, *they may as well be*, but that does not make it so.
On the other side of the coin, what if it became common practice for a step dad to come into a family and kill off all the male offspring of the previous dad. The king of the jungle does it.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. OK, as I mentioned earlier, by not ascribing to a single religion, a person is free to draw on all bodies of religion (INCLUDING the Bible), philosophy, literature, science, poetry, and life experiences for his or her morals. I'd list some other specifics, but you'd probably dismiss them anyway as irrelevant, since that seems to be the general thrust of your argument as of late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are not irrlevant, as it does give you alook at where you get your morals from. I do however think that it shows you how your morals will evolve (for lack of a better word) over time as you are still basing it on your experiences, books that you read, poetry and music you listen to and such. That will change over time and so will you along with it. That is your chosen path. But it is not going to be as straight a line as some beleive it to be. (I keep remembering how everyone asks how their parents are such prudes, and their parents asked the same thing.) No doubt that morality changes over time as far as socially acceptable, but that does not, in my opinion, make it right. Thank you for your response.
I know a lot of people hate this theory, but here it goes (please use your imagination):
Nothing is concrete, it is all an unwritten agreement amongst human beings in a society. Can you imagine a society in which something that we take for granted as immoral was okay?
Let's take one of the ten commandments - thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Now what if everyone in our isolated culture thought it was just fine to sleep with everyone else? Children were brought up by the community as a whole. The notion of mother and father was much broader to include all senior men and women. What we believe to be (literally) set in stone is in fact not.
Whether or not you think the above example makes for a great society or not is irrelevant, my point is that morals do not necessarily need to exist as some platonic immutable form. If every human agrees on them, *they may as well be*, but that does not make it so.
rr.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thereby proving my point perfectly. If left to themselves morality would become whatever they want it to be. Killing would be ok because of whatever reason they could justify (it is already beginning.) Sex outside of marriage is unavoidable so be sure you wear a condom. Pornography is just a way to relieve sexual tension (and beside I only read it for the Articles). And so on. Except for the first mentioned, most of these are already socially acceptable.
Look at news stories lately and you will find stories praising single moms who raise children with no father and have 2 jobs and go through school. Is their resolve and hard work commendable? Yes! Certainly, that is hard work. If they had a father in the home the child would be better off though. Then on the other side you hear about how families with both parents are terrible because they have lots of children because they are leading to overpopulation. Or how it is somehow weak to be a stay at home mom.
Changing moral climate. Changing social fabric. Not based in something concrete, just on what looks good for this year...
(that should rile many of you up, not that it was my intention to)
They are not irrlevant, as it does give you alook at where you get your morals from. I do however think that it shows you how your morals will evolve (for lack of a better word) over time as you are still basing it on your experiences, books that you read, poetry and music you listen to and such. That will change over time and so will you along with it. That is your chosen path. But it is not going to be as straight a line as some beleive it to be. (I keep remembering how everyone asks how their parents are such prudes, and their parents asked the same thing.) No doubt that morality changes over time as far as socially acceptable, but that does not, in my opinion, make it right. Thank you for your response. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, NoahJ! Thought you were going to disappoint me and that this was going to degenerate into a slugging match of one-liners. Thanks for not disappointing!
I must say that I find it curious, though, why it is that you apparantly beleive that religion (or, do you specifically mean the Bible?) is some unchanging, rock-solid, eternal institution? A "straight-line" as you put it? Take a look at history, and you will see that Christianity has "evolved" much in the past 200 years, let alone the last 2000. Catholocism, Lutheranism, the Protestant movements, etc., are all results of a common ideology which has "evolved" over time. I am wondering what exactly it is that you consider to be unchanging about religion?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the only way for a nation to not eventually sprial into an ever-shifting chaos of social morality is for it to have a strong religious influence. I was just curious what nation you had in mind as the model for this ideal?
I'd also like to say that people are not so mercurial as you seem to be saying. Well, some people are, granted, but on the whole, a person's morals don't dramatically change overnight like last year's fashions. For those that do, I'd have to quesion whether they were actually "morals" to begin with.
my little parable about the Thunder and the idea of interpretation show one main thing: namely, that it is not the solidity of written text that are the ground of a cultures morals but the codes that pervade and dictate conduct, and these codes are grounded in the manner in which the primal phenomena of Thunder is translated. (Read 'Thunder' here as being awe in the face of primordial Being)
The translation of the Thunder is interpretation, at first by the few who were stronger, then, as time passed, translation is in reference to the background experiences of the personal and historical conditions of the culture in question. Meaning that the solidity of the written codes is not solidity: it is the shifting sands of the FACT that all our experiences are FUNDAMENTALLY interpretation.
(teh FACT that there are no FACTS only interpretations)
You give the case of a sales contract: the point can be seen in two ways: money is a social contract: it is only valuable because we agree that it has the value that it does: there is not even the pretense to a gold standard anymore.
and,
the contract brings up the notion of the Law: the law proceeds according to the process of jurisprudence: dialogue and arguement based on interpretations: interpretations based on precedence: the Law is essentially hermeneutical.
Hermeneutics is the name of the philosophy that started as a form of theology concerned with interpreting biblical texts. But, its premesis soon stretched beyond those small confines and moved to encompass the grounding of all human experience: meaning that we are ABSOLUTELY without anchor because we are, as beings, always interpreting in relation to a limited background or experience: even if there were absolute Platonic forms down at the Kmart, we would still have a view circumscribed by experience and language!!!
Another point: Morals evolve because they are grounded in generalizations based on practical experience: what seems to serve the social purpose (which used to be feed the strong).
However, I do agree that there is something essentially theological about morals. Even though (as in my above parable) they ultimately grow out of a fear of primordial experience and practical porposes. And this theological notion of morals is important to the workings of a civilization.
on this I agree with NoahJ.
However, it is important because the state of seeing the real origins or morals after so much theological-crutching results in Nihilism, and nihilism can result in despair and or chaos. However this may be true, but that does not mean that the theological underpinnings of morals are TRUE.
Another way of saying this is that the social body needs the lie of the 'grounding' of values and morals in a God or else they risk facing the world without value confered from on high, they must face a difficult responcibility.
Vico is a philosopher who writes about different stages of human civilization, the final stage (th estage of irony) being when they realize that they had been responcible for their own system of values all along. For him this final stage results in a collapse to barbarism . . . but that doesn't prove that the theological basis is real. (though he was a Christian, nominally) then he says the stages repeat again . . . corso ricorso. Fom the stage of primary Metaphor (natural phenomena=god) to Irony (we understand only what we make and we made our values) collapse then again.
However, there is the possibility that the pragmatic origins of morals can be recognized and accepted (though I think that kind of task may actually be much harder than it sounds and may be only for the few that can take it: the strong?!?! the creative?!?! PeeWee Herman? hhhmn?
Well, NoahJ! Thought you were going to disappoint me and that this was going to degenerate into a slugging match of one-liners. Thanks for not disappointing!
I must say that I find it curious, though, why it is that you apparantly beleive that religion (or, do you specifically mean the Bible?) is some unchanging, rock-solid, eternal institution? A "straight-line" as you put it? Take a look at history, and you will see that Christianity has "evolved" much in the past 200 years, let alone the last 2000. Catholocism, Lutheranism, the Protestant movements, etc., are all results of a common ideology which has "evolved" over time. I am wondering what exactly it is that you consider to be unchanging about religion?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the only way for a nation to not eventually sprial into an ever-shifting chaos of social morality is for it to have a strong religious influence. I was just curious what nation you had in mind as the model for this ideal?
I'd also like to say that people are not so mercurial as you seem to be saying. Well, some people are, granted, but on the whole, a person's morals don't dramatically change overnight like last year's fashions. For those that do, I'd have to quesion whether they were actually "morals" to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is indeed rare that a religios debate on a board like this is so, um, civilized. I am enjoying the back and forth. Good stretch of my own thinking, and actually hleps me to sort out what I actually believe.
I think if you want a view of mercurial changing in peoples morality one has to look no further than mob mentality. LA Riots and such show you how quickly a law abiding citzen can become a degenerate in a blink of an eye. SUre it does not happen all the time, and it is an extreme example. But it has happened in more than one instance and in more than one place. (seattle for another example)
And obviously this change does not usually happen overnight. It is gradual, and those doing the changing often wonder why everyone else changes as they have stayed the same.
And finally, yes, it is not religion that is what does not change. It is the Bible I am referring to as the moral guideline. The Ten COmmandments and sermon on the mount and many of the parables of Christ. Just to name a few points where morality can be found written out in scripture in a fairly forthright manner.
Comments
<strong>Christianity is unique in that it is the only religion of the three to believe that Jesus is both the son of and a part of God.
Not all christians believe in the trinity. Mainly catholics and other denominations. Many believe that God and the holy spirit are one but Jesus is another entity entirely. There is so much confusion in christianity it's hard to make a general statement about the ideology as a whole. It's one of the reasons I have rejected all but the most basic principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Outsider,
I am starting to get a different picture of you. But that is not the point of my post.
It is true that there are many different beleifs in the "Christian" faith. Unfortunately anyone can call themselves a "Christian" and for the most part it has become a meaningless label. In fact, even calling youself a Catholic or a protestant or Southern baptist still does not do what people are looking for. It does not clarify what you do or do not beleive. I think a person saying that they are a "Born Again beleiver" says more than I am a Christian, to those in the faith. But it is pretty much meaningless jabber to non-beleivers.
What are the basic principles that you have not rejected out of curiosity? (since i am sure it would be near impossible to list all the ones you have rejected.
and men were like unto beasts
they were chaotic and lawless.
Then, the Thunder made them afraid.
they saw that thunder was like a mad father and they said there is God and all nature is animated with God, and he can be angry and roar.
Some of the men were bigger and stronger than the others: they liked the women and the food, and liked the others to get these things for them.
They said that the Thunder demanded that things work accordingly, or the Thunder would roar.
what was called 'according' slowly changed from outright slavery to practical means of providing for the strong by maintaining the weak through rules.
These rules were first organized by the mediated rule of the 'thunder' as told to the weak by the strong: in other words, the strong told the weak what Thunder meant: the strong became the priests.
The priests managed to get taken care of without doing physical work but by making sure the thunder was happy. If the weather was bad it was not the strong people's fault, no, they blamed the weak: the weak were guilty, it was the strong men's role to tell them that.
They did not live according to the 'rules' set by the Thunder as told to them by the strong, so the weather went foul and people went hungry -so the strong said to their 'people'.
The Thunder was also the voice of the saddness of life: it took everything from the poor in the form of passing time (all things fade and leave): and in its place the thunder said: if you live by the codes then the strong will look kindly upon you: over time this changed to: if you live by the codes all that was taken will be made whole: it presupposed that the poor hate this world of fading things: in fact the more they hated it the more they were promised a reward. Trembling and self denial became marks of how good a person was: and how good they were was how well they lived by the codes.
Soon, even the strong forgot that the rules were established for their benefit.
they no longer understood that what they called 'morality' was the solidified codes of conduct established in order to best satisfy them by keeping the weak working and afraid of the Thunder.
But because the codes were hidden they worked: if it were known that the codes were born out of fear, power and the hatred of passing time all centered around the figure behind the Thunder: then they would have to make up their own meanings and descriptions of conduct and values.
But, by the time the people began to see that this might be true, they had allready established a civilization and moral code founded on the denial of this world and fear, they did not know how to make an action valuable in itself>
And this they called Nihilism.
And low the many people thought that Nihilism was despair. Despair, because they didn't know how to hear the Thunder as it used to be heard and didn't know how to live:
and low others felt elated because nothing was true anymore: therefor everything was permitted: if they had the creativity to make.
Anyway.. I had to double post.... inanity intruded
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: RyanTheGreat ]</p>
<strong>
I'm one of these annoying people who is utterly grounded in science and has absolutely no belief in anything that cannot be proven. I don't need a mathematical proof for most things, but some kind of grounding in reality helps.
If someone can show me some contemporary evidence that this Jesus guy ever existed, then I could perhaps be persuaded.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you find no evidence that Jesus as a man existed you are not looking very hard. Show me contemporary evidence that Pontius Pilot existed, or any other figure that was known to exist around the time of Jesus. Most of your "evidence" would be based on writings or possibly artifacts claimed by archeologists to have belonged to them. The same can be said about Jesus, except of course for the Artifacts (he did not own much after all being a poor carpenter
[edit] added some links
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html"; target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Jesuschrist.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Jesuschrist.asp</a>;
(only 2 sites that a lazy Google search found on the First page)
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>I'm sick of people telling me that morals cannot exist without religion. I am not a believer and I follower a stronger moral code than most Chrisitans that I know! When people say things like that it seems almost like a personal insult. "You dont believe in god, so you must be a souless animal without morals."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Everyone has a soul, and a moral code. The question is, what is that code grounded in? What is to prevent that moral code from shifting with society? That is the question that nobody seems to be able to answer. and befor eyou say that the Bible changes over time too, I disagree. It is translated to make it easier for people to understand in their own language, but there are still copies of origional writings to fall back on if you want to cross check what your bible says today. you just have to translate from the Hebrew (no small task sometimes) or whatever language it happens to be written in.
Eerything shifts over time. Even if the words were written nowhere but in stone they would still have to be interpretted. And interpretation is absolutely influenced by real and historical conditions.
This is the basis for the understanding of the process of understanding known as "Hermeneutics". A philosophical term which originally derives from the process of understanding biblical texts.
The belief that there is anything in this world that is not subject to interpretatin and therefor is dependant upon historical understandings is misslead.
Even if truth were given to the world in a crystal form we would still have to interpret it according to our experience: this is why the "what the book says I go by" brand of fundamentalism is bunk!
Hey, and read my post above you spiritually lazy bunch of dogmatic crybabies
<strong>
Eerything shifts over time. Even if the words were written nowhere but in stone they would still have to be interpretted. And interpretation is absolutely influenced by real and historical conditions.
This is the basis for the understanding of the process of understanding known as "Hermeneutics". A philosophical term which originally derives from the process of understanding biblical texts.
The belief that there is anything in this world that is not subject to interpretatin and therefor is dependant upon historical understandings is misslead.
Even if truth were given to the world in a crystal form we would still have to interpret it according to our experience: this is why the "what the book says I go by" brand of fundamentalism is bunk!
Hey, and read my post above you spiritually lazy bunch of dogmatic crybabies
I read your post above. I laughed, and then I went on. I see what your point is, but I did not feel the need to reply.
And to hit your earlier points, I never said that the bible was not open to interpretation, if you read many of my posts here interpretation is a major sticking point. However, at least it is written down.
Go to a car dealership and buy a car. The salesman will agree to whatever you say just to sell you the car. But if you do not write it down on the contract, good luck trying to get it. Even if it is written down clearly it is open to some interpretation and you still may not get everything.
My point, you are right that jsut because it was written does not mean it is not going to shift a bit. Even anchors drag in heavy weather. But if it is not written down, it does not exist at all and if you are not anchored you will be tossed around without any hope of finding your way at all.
(wow, from cave men, to interpretation, to car dealers, to boats. I think I need to sit down
<strong>I agree.... even the moral code of Christians has changed since the early christians. Different cultures see things as morally sound, 50 years ago, Elvis shaking his hips was seen as outrageous!</strong><hr></blockquote>
And 50 years ago Bill Clinton would have been lynched as well. Your point? What you bring up proves my point beautifully. The ever shifting morals of a society with no anchor.
Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial.
<strong>
Everyone has a soul, and a moral code. The question is, what is that code grounded in? What is to prevent that moral code from shifting with society? That is the question that nobody seems to be able to answer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The strength of our convictions, and belief in ourselves. The same thing that prevents the faith of the religous from changing when challenged.
Not everyone needs to be able to recite chapter and verse from a text in order to maintain or defend their convictions.
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
<strong>
The strength of our convictions, and belief in ourselves. The same thing that prevents the faith of the religous from changing when challenged.
Not everyone needs to be able to recite chapter and verse from a text in order to maintain or defend their convictions.
[ 02-11-2002: Message edited by: jesperas ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So in other words, nothing concrete. Oh well.
<strong>
So in other words, nothing concrete. Oh well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, I see what you're getting at. OK, as I mentioned earlier, by not ascribing to a single religion, a person is free to draw on all bodies of religion (INCLUDING the Bible), philosophy, literature, science, poetry, and life experiences for his or her morals. I'd list some other specifics, but you'd probably dismiss them anyway as irrelevant, since that seems to be the general thrust of your argument as of late.
HA! YES!
I know a lot of people hate this theory, but here it goes (please use your imagination):
Nothing is concrete, it is all an unwritten agreement amongst human beings in a society. Can you imagine a society in which something that we take for granted as immoral was okay?
Let's take one of the ten commandments - thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Now what if everyone in our isolated culture thought it was just fine to sleep with everyone else? Children were brought up by the community as a whole. The notion of mother and father was much broader to include all senior men and women. What we believe to be (literally) set in stone is in fact not.
Whether or not you think the above example makes for a great society or not is irrelevant, my point is that morals do not necessarily need to exist as some platonic immutable form. If every human agrees on them, *they may as well be*, but that does not make it so.
rr.
Would it make it 'moral'?
<strong>
Ah, I see what you're getting at. OK, as I mentioned earlier, by not ascribing to a single religion, a person is free to draw on all bodies of religion (INCLUDING the Bible), philosophy, literature, science, poetry, and life experiences for his or her morals. I'd list some other specifics, but you'd probably dismiss them anyway as irrelevant, since that seems to be the general thrust of your argument as of late.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They are not irrlevant, as it does give you alook at where you get your morals from. I do however think that it shows you how your morals will evolve (for lack of a better word) over time as you are still basing it on your experiences, books that you read, poetry and music you listen to and such. That will change over time and so will you along with it. That is your chosen path. But it is not going to be as straight a line as some beleive it to be. (I keep remembering how everyone asks how their parents are such prudes, and their parents asked the same thing.) No doubt that morality changes over time as far as socially acceptable, but that does not, in my opinion, make it right. Thank you for your response.
<strong>
HA! YES!
I know a lot of people hate this theory, but here it goes (please use your imagination):
Nothing is concrete, it is all an unwritten agreement amongst human beings in a society. Can you imagine a society in which something that we take for granted as immoral was okay?
Let's take one of the ten commandments - thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife. Now what if everyone in our isolated culture thought it was just fine to sleep with everyone else? Children were brought up by the community as a whole. The notion of mother and father was much broader to include all senior men and women. What we believe to be (literally) set in stone is in fact not.
Whether or not you think the above example makes for a great society or not is irrelevant, my point is that morals do not necessarily need to exist as some platonic immutable form. If every human agrees on them, *they may as well be*, but that does not make it so.
rr.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thereby proving my point perfectly. If left to themselves morality would become whatever they want it to be. Killing would be ok because of whatever reason they could justify (it is already beginning.) Sex outside of marriage is unavoidable so be sure you wear a condom. Pornography is just a way to relieve sexual tension (and beside I only read it for the Articles). And so on. Except for the first mentioned, most of these are already socially acceptable.
Look at news stories lately and you will find stories praising single moms who raise children with no father and have 2 jobs and go through school. Is their resolve and hard work commendable? Yes! Certainly, that is hard work. If they had a father in the home the child would be better off though. Then on the other side you hear about how families with both parents are terrible because they have lots of children because they are leading to overpopulation. Or how it is somehow weak to be a stay at home mom.
Changing moral climate. Changing social fabric. Not based in something concrete, just on what looks good for this year...
(that should rile many of you up, not that it was my intention to)
<strong>
They are not irrlevant, as it does give you alook at where you get your morals from. I do however think that it shows you how your morals will evolve (for lack of a better word) over time as you are still basing it on your experiences, books that you read, poetry and music you listen to and such. That will change over time and so will you along with it. That is your chosen path. But it is not going to be as straight a line as some beleive it to be. (I keep remembering how everyone asks how their parents are such prudes, and their parents asked the same thing.) No doubt that morality changes over time as far as socially acceptable, but that does not, in my opinion, make it right. Thank you for your response.
Well, NoahJ! Thought you were going to disappoint me and that this was going to degenerate into a slugging match of one-liners. Thanks for not disappointing!
I must say that I find it curious, though, why it is that you apparantly beleive that religion (or, do you specifically mean the Bible?) is some unchanging, rock-solid, eternal institution? A "straight-line" as you put it? Take a look at history, and you will see that Christianity has "evolved" much in the past 200 years, let alone the last 2000. Catholocism, Lutheranism, the Protestant movements, etc., are all results of a common ideology which has "evolved" over time. I am wondering what exactly it is that you consider to be unchanging about religion?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the only way for a nation to not eventually sprial into an ever-shifting chaos of social morality is for it to have a strong religious influence. I was just curious what nation you had in mind as the model for this ideal?
I'd also like to say that people are not so mercurial as you seem to be saying. Well, some people are, granted, but on the whole, a person's morals don't dramatically change overnight like last year's fashions. For those that do, I'd have to quesion whether they were actually "morals" to begin with.
my little parable about the Thunder and the idea of interpretation show one main thing: namely, that it is not the solidity of written text that are the ground of a cultures morals but the codes that pervade and dictate conduct, and these codes are grounded in the manner in which the primal phenomena of Thunder is translated. (Read 'Thunder' here as being awe in the face of primordial Being)
The translation of the Thunder is interpretation, at first by the few who were stronger, then, as time passed, translation is in reference to the background experiences of the personal and historical conditions of the culture in question. Meaning that the solidity of the written codes is not solidity: it is the shifting sands of the FACT that all our experiences are FUNDAMENTALLY interpretation.
(teh FACT that there are no FACTS only interpretations)
You give the case of a sales contract: the point can be seen in two ways: money is a social contract: it is only valuable because we agree that it has the value that it does: there is not even the pretense to a gold standard anymore.
and,
the contract brings up the notion of the Law: the law proceeds according to the process of jurisprudence: dialogue and arguement based on interpretations: interpretations based on precedence: the Law is essentially hermeneutical.
Hermeneutics is the name of the philosophy that started as a form of theology concerned with interpreting biblical texts. But, its premesis soon stretched beyond those small confines and moved to encompass the grounding of all human experience: meaning that we are ABSOLUTELY without anchor because we are, as beings, always interpreting in relation to a limited background or experience: even if there were absolute Platonic forms down at the Kmart, we would still have a view circumscribed by experience and language!!!
Another point: Morals evolve because they are grounded in generalizations based on practical experience: what seems to serve the social purpose (which used to be feed the strong).
However, I do agree that there is something essentially theological about morals. Even though (as in my above parable) they ultimately grow out of a fear of primordial experience and practical porposes. And this theological notion of morals is important to the workings of a civilization.
on this I agree with NoahJ.
However, it is important because the state of seeing the real origins or morals after so much theological-crutching results in Nihilism, and nihilism can result in despair and or chaos. However this may be true, but that does not mean that the theological underpinnings of morals are TRUE.
Another way of saying this is that the social body needs the lie of the 'grounding' of values and morals in a God or else they risk facing the world without value confered from on high, they must face a difficult responcibility.
Vico is a philosopher who writes about different stages of human civilization, the final stage (th estage of irony) being when they realize that they had been responcible for their own system of values all along. For him this final stage results in a collapse to barbarism . . . but that doesn't prove that the theological basis is real. (though he was a Christian, nominally) then he says the stages repeat again . . . corso ricorso. Fom the stage of primary Metaphor (natural phenomena=god) to Irony (we understand only what we make and we made our values) collapse then again.
However, there is the possibility that the pragmatic origins of morals can be recognized and accepted (though I think that kind of task may actually be much harder than it sounds and may be only for the few that can take it: the strong?!?! the creative?!?! PeeWee Herman? hhhmn?
Or then again I might just burn in hell.
... is that near Albany?
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]
[ 02-12-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>
Well, NoahJ! Thought you were going to disappoint me and that this was going to degenerate into a slugging match of one-liners. Thanks for not disappointing!
I must say that I find it curious, though, why it is that you apparantly beleive that religion (or, do you specifically mean the Bible?) is some unchanging, rock-solid, eternal institution? A "straight-line" as you put it? Take a look at history, and you will see that Christianity has "evolved" much in the past 200 years, let alone the last 2000. Catholocism, Lutheranism, the Protestant movements, etc., are all results of a common ideology which has "evolved" over time. I am wondering what exactly it is that you consider to be unchanging about religion?
Also, you seem to be suggesting that the only way for a nation to not eventually sprial into an ever-shifting chaos of social morality is for it to have a strong religious influence. I was just curious what nation you had in mind as the model for this ideal?
I'd also like to say that people are not so mercurial as you seem to be saying. Well, some people are, granted, but on the whole, a person's morals don't dramatically change overnight like last year's fashions. For those that do, I'd have to quesion whether they were actually "morals" to begin with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is indeed rare that a religios debate on a board like this is so, um, civilized.
I think if you want a view of mercurial changing in peoples morality one has to look no further than mob mentality. LA Riots and such show you how quickly a law abiding citzen can become a degenerate in a blink of an eye. SUre it does not happen all the time, and it is an extreme example. But it has happened in more than one instance and in more than one place. (seattle for another example)
And obviously this change does not usually happen overnight. It is gradual, and those doing the changing often wonder why everyone else changes as they have stayed the same.
And finally, yes, it is not religion that is what does not change. It is the Bible I am referring to as the moral guideline. The Ten COmmandments and sermon on the mount and many of the parables of Christ. Just to name a few points where morality can be found written out in scripture in a fairly forthright manner.