Is no person beyond redemption? [Archive]

Christian

28th May 2003, 09:00 AM

Diogenes wrote:
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.

Have you ever considered the anthropological angle. It would point out that you are a *good* person based on the progression of the totallity of the elements that have made you what you are today.

So, to an anthropologist you are no better *qualitatively* than a canibal. And remember, a cannibal eats lots of people. Are you better than a cannibal?

What if you could live the life of vile people, see the misery through their eyes?

Why not consider yourself fortune that you have the luxury of your moral superiority?

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Christian
Diogenes wrote:
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.

Have you ever considered the anthropological angle. It would point out that you are a *good* person based on the progression of the totallity of the elements that have made you what you are today.

So, to an anthropologist you are no better *qualitatively* than a canibal. And remember, a cannibal eats lots of people. Are you better than a cannibal?

I certainly would not make that assumption..

What if you could live the life of vile people, see the misery through their eyes?

What if pigs could fly? I'll pass on seeing life through the eyes of a vile person..

Why not consider yourself fortune that you have the luxury of your moral superiority?

Feeling judged, because I pointed out a flaw in Christian philosophy?

Try refuting my observation instead of trying to insult me.

Christian

28th May 2003, 12:45 PM

Diogenes wrote:
What if pigs could fly? I'll pass on seeing life through the eyes of a vile person..

So you consider the study on the psychology of criminals a futile endevour.

Feeling judged, because I pointed out a flaw in Christian philosophy?

Try refuting my observation instead of trying to insult me.

I thought I did. And, why do you feel insulted? Did I assume wrong when I concluded that you feel morally superior to criminals?

My point is simple. I see causality and you must believe it at the macrolevel (e.g. evolution). The only logical conclusion is that it is not the fault of the entity. The entity has no choice. Can a spider not act like a spider. Can a lion not hunt and kill?

Criminals are the product of causality. Why would we feel any better *qualitatively* then they.

The conclusion to this understanding is that because we are no different qualitatively, we all have an equal chance of redemption regardless of the elements that made us what we are.

Again, will you argue you are qualitatively better (superior) than a petty thief in the streets of San Salvador? Maybe if he lived in a country like yours, he would not be one.

You see, as I have said many time, there are implications to your position that you cannot escape. Once you begin condemning other human beings on the basis of their behavior, then you become that which you say does not exist (God).

Please don't confuse this type of condemnation with the legal system. It only deals with privileges, not the qualitatively values of a human being.

Pahansiri

28th May 2003, 01:00 PM

Greetings.

I agree with Christian as to this. The quote at the bottom of my post

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

Is one of my favorites. All things are the result of causes and conditions. We look to quickly at many times at many things and wish to see only black and white, that is not the case.

Allow me 2 examples if you I use this first one with people debating their pro death/execution beliefs.

There was a man several years up for parole and it was at that time I heard his story.

Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.

Part 2, as they say the rest of the story.

This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen.

I ask again should this man be executed? Some do not answer, a few say no some say yes.

What else could this man be but what he was? Was any of what he did well and right? NO but "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

This last war, Saddam ‘s 2 sons. They are beasts that is fact. But they have also known nothing else. By 12 each HAD to shoot and kill prisoners and were made to watch and then be involved in torture from young childhood. Their powerful father telling them over and over “it is kill or be killed”.

Was any of what he did well and right? NO but "If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility."...H.W.Longfellow

Just what I believe

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings.

.

There was a man several years up for parole and it was at that time I heard his story.

Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.

Part 2, as they say the rest of the story.

This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen.

I ask again should this man be executed? Some do not answer, a few say no some say yes.

I would still say yes... And the people who mistreated him should be punished as well..

Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."

Showing that an evil person is a victim, does not make them less evil.. It just shows they are not alone..

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Christian
Diogenes wrote:
[b]

if he lived in a country like yours, he would not be one.

You see, as I have said many time, there are implications to your position that you cannot escape. Once you begin condemning other human beings on the basis of their behavior, then you become that which you say does not exist (God).

But I don't condemn anyone!

It is your God and your religion that does this..

Your God creates an evil being, and then punishes it for doing what comes naturally...:rolleyes: ( Remember the Garden of Eden?)

If there is no condemnation ( for acts beyond ones control ... your beggar in SanSalvador..), then their is no need for redemption..

Pahansiri

28th May 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

I would still say yes... And the people who mistreated him should be punished as well..

Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."

Showing that an evil person is a victim, does not make them less evil.. It just shows they are not alone..

Hello Diogenes I respect your belief or right to it.

You say Have you ever heard: " Two wrongs do not make a right .."

Remember I did not say what he did was right but clearly it had a cause one he was powerless at the time to stop it when it happened.

Also you believe he was wrong yet you wish to kill him, that makes your statment Hypocrisy and by such illogical.

I do not believe in "sins" or people are evil I believe they, and you and I do evil things at times. You can not say it is wrong to kill then kill someone.

By the way as to that case he asked to never be let out, I forgot to add that.

One last thing if he was your child, taken from you at 5, years later you find him after this would you sit in that court and say kill him?
Just what I believe, be well.

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 02:09 PM

Pahansiri,

When I said ' Yes' after hearing part 2, of your story above, it was with the assumption that I had said yes to capital punishment with regard to part one, without knowing about part 2..

My point was, that if he deserved to die because of what he did, what was done to him wouldn't change that..

If he had killed his abusers, I'm sure I would not consider execution as a fitting punishment.

I think I could kill under certain circumstances, and I would be wrong if I did so.

I can't imagine killing my son, but I cannot imagine him doing something for which I would feel compelled to kill him.

But would also have to say I'm a bit biased in that regard...

I have a problem with capital punishment due to the potential and apparent misapplication of it. I would be satisfied with unqualified isolation of capital offenders from the rest of society.

I would have to stop short of trying to find any justification for their deeds..

Pahansiri

28th May 2003, 02:28 PM

Thank you for answering Diogenes

My point was, that if he deserved to die because of what he did, what was done to him wouldn't change that..

But what is deserving to die? What happened to him had a great deal to do with that. The chances that he would have done what he did if he were raised in a loving home would be very low. The law does in fact allow for mental defect, such a life is a cause of mental defect.

You write I think I could kill under certain circumstances, and I would be wrong if I did so.

I am Buddhist so of course feel and believe the same. I would kill if I had to, to protect others but know fully all actions have reactions all causes have effects. Now my belief is as to karma as to rebirth but that is my belief and ask no one to believe it. But regardless there will always be an effect.

I can't imagine killing my son, but I cannot imagine him doing something for which I would feel compelled to kill him.

But would also have to say I'm a bit biased in that regard...

Why not? Because he was raised in a loving home, he did not suffer what this child did?

I would have to stop short of trying to find any justification for their deeds..

I do not justify it at all, I explain causes and conditions behind it. But with respect may I again ask you to answer the question.

Would you say “Yes my child should be executed” If you had the vote to break the tie what would it be?

If this man were killed what would be changed or gained?

[quote[I have a problem with capital punishment due to the potential and apparent misapplication of it. I would be satisfied with unqualified isolation of capital offenders from the rest of society.[/quote]

And it has been and often. What of the people who did not do what they were killed for? What of their loved ones do we just say “oops”. I know you do not believe in it for these reasons also. When a court system kills a being who did not do anything, should they not then be seen as killers?

How can we look into the eyes of our children and say “ killing is never right don’t kill” then we kill.

Just what I believe.

Christian

28th May 2003, 02:38 PM

Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings.

I agree with Christian as to this.

I think Pahansiri has explained it much better than I. I don't think I need to add anything more.

Pahansiri

28th May 2003, 02:50 PM

Greetings my friend Christian how are the twins? Start saving for their future yet? I mean the future phone bills, twin teen girls!!!! school, 2 weddings OH MY!!! lol:eek:

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Thank you for answering Diogenes

But what is deserving to die? What happened to him had a great deal to do with that. The chances that he would have done what he did if he were raised in a loving home would be very low. The law does in fact allow for mental defect, such a life is a cause of mental defect.

It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.

Why not? Because he was raised in a loving home, he did not suffer what this child did?

This would be part of it. Perhaps a great deal of it. Everyone is good or evil, for a reason

I do not justify it at all, I explain causes and conditions behind it. But with respect may I again ask you to answer the question.

Would you say “Yes my child should be executed” If you had the vote to break the tie what would it be?

The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that..

If this man were killed what would be changed or gained?

As mentioned before. Society would be free of the threat he presented..

Just what I believe, as well.

How can we look into the eyes of our children and say “ killing is never right don’t kill” then we kill.

Just what I believe.

Loki

28th May 2003, 03:53 PM

Christian,

The only logical conclusion is that it is not the fault of the entity. The entity has no choice.
You have a very poor understanding of the issues, Christian. Causality does *not* remove responsibility, it explains it. But explaining this would be yet another derailment of a thread into a libertarian versus compatibilist discussion - and there have been plenty of those. I strongly suggest you need to read and understand the compatibilist position before you continue to run with the simplistic Franko position of "TLOP controls YOU! You have no Free Will !" You've been sold a lemon by Franko, and you need to realise it doesn't lead where you think it does.

Back on topic - is no person beyond redemption? If there is an afterlife, then perhaps anyone could be redeemed. Certainly, the catholics like to offer every possibility for this, while still demanding some sort of restitution. The Protestants seem wildly erratic.

Pahansiri

28th May 2003, 04:45 PM

Diogenes

It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.

That is what we have jails for, if a being, say like him who even asked to never be let out must be taken to a place where he can not harm others jail is fine. The killing of a being will not stop others from doing the same.

As Buddhist I do not believe in Redemption in as a God etc that must be pleased etc to receive this redemption I also do not believe to kill someone as a punishment is a redemption for him. No dead person will return because he is killed, no tears for the ones he killed will be erased.

What is this man or another say had a organic mental illness? Should he be killed, as he would be as you say one who would do evil deeds on society.

This would be part of it. Perhaps a great deal of it. Everyone is good or evil, for a reason

Exactly, that is what I said. Causes and conditions. But I do not believe anyone is evil, we do evil things from a perception that is twisted by many causes and conditions.

But while you have not really yet answered my question I assume the answer is no, you could not vote or stand up and say your child should be killed, so why the child of another.

The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that..

I respect your belief but for me in I can I can in no way see how that is the right thing.

As mentioned before. Society would be free of the threat he presented..

As to what I believe that is not logical and is an emotional response. Within that thinking we should kill anyone who may kill someone? Should we do some testing that may predict who may kill and pre-kill them? Many countries leaders present a danger to some others, I know George Bush thinks this way sadly but would you just start dropping bombs on everyone now?

Again I just offer my thoughts on topics that are complex.

Skeptical Greg

28th May 2003, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Pahansiri

But while you have not really yet answered my question I assume the answer is no, you could not vote or stand up and say your child should be killed, so why the child of another.

Which question was that? Yes, I am biased for my son. If that is wrong, so be it..

As to what I believe that is not logical and is an emotional response. Within that thinking we should kill anyone who may kill someone?

Of course not.. Did I mention, I am not in favor of capital punishment?

Pahansiri

29th May 2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes Of course not.. Did I mention, I am not in favor of capital punishment?

You had said you were against it but then you also said The right thing to do would be to say yes, and to kill myself as well, because I would share his guilt. I do not believe I have the courage to do that.. and It is not that he deserves to die, but that the rest of society deserves to be free from his possible further evil deeds. As in my reasoning regarding redemption. I do not believe it is fair to the just, to let the unjust go unpunished.

But Again you did not answer my Question Could you, would you stand up in a court and either cast the vote to execute your son or say”Yes” he must die” .. I know you are bias about your son but this is a yes or no Question .

Gregor

29th May 2003, 05:28 AM

Let me first say, I don't really understand the thread question, based upon the concept 'redemption'.

Is the question, "Are there some people so bad that they shouldn't be allowed to feel regret for the prior acts and accept their punishment and received something like "absolution" from society (but still be punished) - but we're not discussing eternal life in the thread?"

Or is the question "Is the Xian idea of redemption and receiving eternal life in heaven for all who accept Jesus, no matter what heinous crimes were committed, a logically consistent and ethical standard?"

I have a problem squaring eternal life for a seriel killer, with a death-bed conversion, and eternal punishment for a life-long buddist saint.

The Bible does not, however. And current Xian apologists who deny that eternal punishment is promised by the Bible for life-long saints who happen not to be Xian are simply special pleaders making up their own religion.

------

And as to Pan's query, I can reluctantly accept capital punishment, as applied with the McNaughton rule on sanity. Regardless of your past, if you commit multiple felonies, resulting in death, and you know the consequence of your actions and the difference between 'right and wrong' in our society (i.e. you are not insane) capital punishment is justified.

So, if I were to be the judge of the hypothetical you posed, I would address it as follows:

Q 1: Did the defendant do the heinous crimes he is charged with?

A 1: Absolutely. He was caught in the act, there is no question about his guilt, and he confessed.

**

Q 2: Is he legally insane - in other words, did he know that in our society murder is illegal, that he was intentionally committing murder, and he could control his actions?

A 2: Yes. While he had a horrible upbringing and many terrible crimes inflicted upon him, he was an adult, he had average IQ, he knew that murder is illegal, he knew he was committing murder, and he had full control over his acts.

**

Ruling: As our society has determined that capital punishment is acceptable, I sentence him to death.

aggle_rithm

29th May 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Look no further,

Jack Chick has spoken! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0036/0036_01.asp)

So only government bureaucrats are beyond redemption...?

Mr Manifesto

29th May 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Look no further,

Jack Chick has spoken! (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0036/0036_01.asp)

The Bull was saved by a Jack Chick comic! Who would have guessed?

Mr Manifesto

29th May 2003, 06:36 AM

To clarify the question a bit more- can there be some act which redeems the person who commits the unspeakable act? The Bible, as suggested by those who have replied so far, seems to think so.

Pahansiri

29th May 2003, 07:07 AM

Greetings Gregor.

I respect your position and belief.

You wrote; Ruling: As our society has determined that capital punishment is acceptable, I sentence him to death.

What is the parameters of “our society” in fact most Americans and most in the world do not support the death penalty. ( most people also voted for Al Gore but that is another topic lol)

Lets us look at the Taliban in Afghanistan when the were in power, one could say society has determined that stoning woman is acceptable or cutting off hands or Stalin’s Russia , or Pol Pot or Hitler etc.

Allow me to ask you the same question I asked Diogenes.

If the man I spoke of for example was your son, taken from you at 5 and lived what he did. You find him now an adult and at court for what he did. You are asked to stand and cast a vote on him either going to jail for life or having electricity pumped through his body until he was dead.

What would your vote be?

Skeptical Greg

29th May 2003, 07:25 AM

Pahansiri
You said:
Part one: This man was convicted or kidnapping several woman, beating, raping and then killing and mutilating them.

I ask the pro death/execution friend is this man should be executed. The response is always yes.Yes, I would be in favor of executing this person if his guilt was beyond any shred of doubt. However, due to our inability to implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I oppose capital punishment as part of the justice system.

Then you presented Part 2:
This man was kidnapped as a child ( at 5) he was used in child porn movies, raped, beaten and tortured on film and as part of his day. Passed around for most of his life, a drug addict and alcoholic by the time he was an early teen. And asked if my answer would still be yes. .......And I say " Yes"... The way he was treated may be the reason he behaved badly, but it does not justify his actions. I still think he ' deserves ' to die. If we could implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I would have no qualms about voting for his execution.

Then you ask " Would I feel/vote the same if it were my son? "

I believe I can objectively say, my son would 'deserve' to die. However, I would not have the courage or the will to vote 'yes' for his execution.

So, to address your final point:
.....But Again you did not answer my Question Could you, would you stand up in a court and either cast the vote to execute your son or say”Yes” he must die” .. I know you are bias about your son but this is a yes or no Question .

No.

Skeptical Greg

29th May 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Greetings Gregor.

.............

You are asked to stand and cast a vote on him either going to jail for life or having electricity pumped through his body until he was dead.

What would your vote be?

Hey!! No fair!! I didn't get this choice.....:(

Pahansiri

29th May 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Pahansiri
You said:
Yes, I would be in favor of executing this person if his guilt was beyond any shred of doubt. However, due to our inability to implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I oppose capital punishment as part of the justice system.

Then you presented Part 2:
And asked if my answer would still be yes. .......And I say " Yes"... The way he was treated may be the reason he behaved badly, but it does not justify his actions. I still think he ' deserves ' to die. If we could implement a flawless system of capital punishment, I would have no qualms about voting for his execution.

Then you ask " Would I feel/vote the same if it were my son? "

I believe I can objectively say, my son would 'deserve' to die. However, I would not have the courage or the will to vote 'yes' for his execution.

So, to address your final point:

No.

Diogenes I respect your views and honesty.

Pahansiri

29th May 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Hey!! No fair!! I didn't get this choice.....:(

Yes you did... now don't be that way:D

aggle_rithm

29th May 2003, 10:49 AM

According to many Christian denominations, suicide is the one thing that puts you beyond redemption. Your last act on earth is to take a life, so there is no chance for you to repent.

Gregor

29th May 2003, 12:48 PM

As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation - but I think I could say 'yes,' although I am not certain. But luckily our government does not require parents to mete out the punishment that society imposes.

A relative cannot act as the judge of a defendant under the US system of law.

But, as I accept capital punishment in theory, wouldn't it be hypocritical for me to say no? Would I regret that the real judge sentenced him to death - absolutely. Would it make me change my view that capital punishment shouldn't be used? No.

And since I do not accept another society's laws (read Afghanistan), I am not obligated to justify them. Since I accept in theory capital punishment, I must defend my belief.

Pahansiri

29th May 2003, 12:57 PM

Gregor I respect your views and honesty.
There is a flaw as to this As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation

As we all must concede, one cannot really say what one would do if faced with the choice of life or death for a son. Until that time, it's only gross speculation

Not really, in fact this is not true as it is too sweeping . I for one would not agree with the execution of my son or yours or Saddam’s or for a person who killed my entire family.

For me I could not be part of taking someone’s life for this reason and situation, for me it would insult the life of my family to act in a way or revenge that does what we felt was wrong.

Gandhi said well “ an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”

Back to my point I can say with confidence there are many who would say no.

Just what I believe

Christian

2nd June 2003, 09:18 AM

Pahansiri wrote:
Greetings my friend Christian how are the twins? Start saving for their future yet? I mean the future phone bills, twin teen girls!!!! school, 2 weddings OH MY!!! Lol

I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner. Thanks for asking for the twins. They are 8 months old now. (how time flies). Yes, I think I get the short end of the stick here.

Loki wrote:
You have a very poor understanding of the issues, Christian.

Do I?

Causality does *not* remove responsibility, it explains it.

That depend on the type of responsibility you are referring to and of whom or what you are speaking about. You would agree that a lion is not morally responsible for killing a rival lion.

I strongly suggest you need to read and understand the compatibilist position before you continue to run with the simplistic Franko position of "TLOP controls YOU! You have no Free Will !"

Please forget Franko. I would like you to address my points on this specific topic. I think causality can be pretty much demonstrated from this perspective.

You've been sold a lemon by Franko, and you need to realise it doesn't lead where you think it does.

In this topic, it demonstrates (and we find a logical explanation) why God is willing to grant eternal life to mankind not based on their past actions.

Back on topic - is no person beyond redemption? If there is an afterlife, then perhaps anyone could be redeemed. Certainly, the catholics like to offer every possibility for this, while still demanding some sort of restitution. The Protestants seem wildly erratic.

No, no person is beyond redemption.

Back to the causality topic, the whole anthropological study is based on the premise of causality. According to this field, what humans are today is the result of their particular progression. I hope you see the implications of this. To anthropologist, we are not cannibals simply because our distinct progression did not lead us there, but if we had had the same progression, we would have been.

A side note:
Are you still interested in continuing the morality discussion. This week I do have a little more time.

Loki

2nd June 2003, 02:56 PM

Christian,

You would agree that a lion is not morally responsible for killing a rival lion
You would agree a lion is not a human? Morality exists *only* in the human realm - analogies outside of this have no relevence.

Please forget Franko.
Happy to!

To anthropologist, we are not cannibals simply because our distinct progression did not lead us there, but if we had had the same progression, we would have been.

I don't understand what you are saying here - humans are not cannibals because that's not where evolution took us, but we could be cannibals if we "rewound history" and followed the exact same evolutionary path?

Are you still interested in continuing the morality discussion.
You'll have to refresh my memory - which discussion is that? Where were we up to?

Christian

2nd June 2003, 03:18 PM

Loki wrote:
You would agree a lion is not a human? Morality exists *only* in the human realm - analogies outside of this have no relevence.

Fair enough. Let's try this: insane people are not morally or legally responsible if they killed a person.

I don't understand what you are saying here - humans are not cannibals because that's not where evolution took us, but we could be cannibals if we "rewound history" and followed the exact same evolutionary path?

Anthropologist don't like to use the word evolution anymore because that implies going from a lower plain to a higher one. What they say is that each civilization (society) follows a path to ensure its survival.

Let's use a simpler example. There are tribes of people today that exchange their females for cattle. Are you going to argue that that is morally wrong?

When you say *humans* are not cannibals, the model you have is a western one, that sells the idea that humans evolve from primitive societies to more complex ones. This has been widely refutted by modern anthropologists. Today, the view is of each society following its own path based on the elements that make up their reality. This is where causality comes in.

The predictive power of Anthropology and its depth in understanding the past comes from causality.

You'll have to refresh my memory - which discussion is that? Where were we up to?

On Remorse (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=448757#post448757)

Loki

2nd June 2003, 05:51 PM

Christian,

Let's try this: insane people are not morally or legally responsible if they killed a person.

No, they are not. All causes are not equal. Seawater will cause iron to rust. Seawater does not coerce iron to rust. cause != coerce.

There are tribes of people today that exchange their females for cattle. Are you going to argue that that is morally wrong?
Perhaps, perhaps not. Context is everything - which is your point, I think. What you seem to be missing is that *not all causes are equal* when we are talking about morality.

...that sells the idea that humans evolve from primitive societies to more complex ones.
The evolution of human society from primitive to complex is driven primarily by size/expansion. New problems require new solutions. More people = more interation = more complexity. The complexity is not necessarily "good" or "desireable", but "inevitable".

This has been widely refutted by modern anthropologists.
Can you provide a reference or two? I might agree with this - just haven't done enough reading to have a solid opinion.

And perhaps we should leave the other discussion for now - although you were making an interesting point there, and I'd like to see you expand/defend it sometime!

Christian

3rd June 2003, 08:42 AM

Loki wrote:
No, they are not. All causes are not equal. Seawater will cause iron to rust. Seawater does not coerce iron to rust. cause != coerce.

Again, you want to bring *free will* into it. Freedom from coercion wont help you in this discussion for the simple reason that, from your standpoint, the reason you can make that distinction and seawater cannot is not of your own making or choice. Evolution cause you to be the only creature to make it (the distinction). You can't escape causality.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Context is everything - which is your point, I think. What you seem to be missing is that *not all causes are equal* when we are talking about morality.

Whatever that means, in this subject *all* is due to causes. Once we arrive at conclusion, we find the system to be deterministic (if only at the macro level)

The evolution of human society from primitive to complex is driven primarily by size/expansion. New problems require new solutions. More people = more interation = more complexity. The complexity is not necessarily "good" or "desireable", but "inevitable".

No, you are approaching this from the old way of looking at the development of society. ("first we ride horse then we ride cars" point of view) That leads to ethnocentrism and racism (I know you are not).

If you strictly translate complexity as more transactions, you would be correct, but thats not what people mean when they say a system is more complex.

Can you provide a reference or two? I might agree with this - just haven't done enough reading to have a solid opinion.

Your wish is my command.

Franz Boas (http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/abcde/boas_franz.html)

Historical Particularism (http://www.lcsc.edu/ss150/u3s1p5.htm)

And perhaps we should leave the other discussion for now - although you were making an interesting point there, and I'd like to see you expand/defend it sometime!

You got it.

Loki

3rd June 2003, 02:45 PM

Christian,

Some of our discussions are quite interesting. This one is, so far, simply confusing. What the hell are we discussing? Can you rephrase your point in a sentence or two? I appear to have lost the plot here completely!

Christian

5th June 2003, 04:50 PM

Loki wrote:
Some of our discussions are quite interesting. This one is, so far, simply confusing. What the hell are we discussing? Can you rephrase your point in a sentence or two? I appear to have lost the plot here completely!

Lately I seem to lose you at the beginning. That's ok because we always get on track.

Sorry if I don't do it in a sentence or two.

Diogenes made this comment:
It seems to me that the message of " no one is beyond redemption " is a theme among most Christian denominations.

It is also one of the reasons I consider Christian based philosophy to be flawed. The idea that a person can commit any number of evil acts throughout their life, then gain redemption on their deathbead and join all the 'good' people in heaven, is laughable and a clue to the true nature of the God that supposededly administers this justice.

Not to mention a monumental insult to all the 'good' people in heaven.

I'm defending the Christian concept of redemption. Diogenes is right to point out the deathbed scenario as a valid Christian doctrine.

What I'm trying to show is that it is valid because God does not jugde us on our past actions to determine if we will go to heaven.

I'm attempting to show this by demonstrating that the *secular moral compass* does not exist.

There is no way Diogenes or you can judge who is good or bad, evil or benign based on the *secular humanism*.

Anthropology utterly destroys secular morality. So, a secular humanist cannot honestly attack the Christian doctrine because he has not intellectual weapons to do so.

If a secular humanist decides to go ahead and attack the doctrine, he finds himself attacking all the antropological fields. That is a tall order.

I, on the other hand, am not faced with that catch-22.

Dancing David

5th June 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Christian

Anthropology utterly destroys secular morality. So, a secular humanist cannot honestly attack the Christian doctrine because he has not intellectual weapons to do so.

If a secular humanist decides to go ahead and attack the doctrine, he finds himself attacking all the antropological fields. That is a tall order.

I, on the other hand, am not faced with that catch-22.

Uh, Pardon me Chrsitian but I fail to see where anthropology says that secularism can't have a moral compass, I know quite a few World famous anthropologists, so I am curious how you came to this conclusion.

If anything an anthropologist would say morals are determined by culture and personal experience, so you could have a secular human culture or an individual who is a secular humanist and they could have morals.

So where does anthropology say that a secular humanist can't have morals?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know

Christian

5th June 2003, 05:52 PM

Dancing David wrote:
Uh, Pardon me Chrsitian but I fail to see where anthropology says that secularism can't have a moral compass, I know quite a few World famous anthropologists, so I am curious how you came to this conclusion.

Oh, I see. Maybe I should phrase that better. Each individual can have a set of rules that he or she follows and considers them good for him or herself. What anthropology destroys is a compass that is outside (a reference).

An anthropologist must be trained to lose his or her personal judgement (the compass). As a matter of fact, these are the people who are more apt to understand and condone what the normal person considers abnormal immoral behavior.

One quick example is infanticide. Many tribes are taught that the mother must kill the child if it is a liability to the clan (maybe because of an abnormality) An antropologist would not consider this immoral behavior because he understands the survival strategies of the tribe and the dinamics within the environment.

If anything an anthropologist would say morals are determined by culture and personal experience, so you could have a secular human culture or an individual who is a secular humanist and they could have morals.

Yes, exaclty. This is why a compass would be useless. What is good and moral in one society is not in another.

Remember, my argument presented because, to Christians, past actions are irrelevant to redemption. This is why.

So where does anthropology say that a secular humanist can't have morals?

This is not what I meant. What I mean is that morals are useless to secular humanist.

There is no foundation that a secular humanist can stand on because, depending on the culture or system, things are moral or not.

So, how can a secular humanist judge a person to be evil if he is not universally evil. A woman that kills her own child in the US is the most vile and evil creature of society. A women of the tribe that kills her own child is a champion for her society.

As a secular humanist, how do you solve that paradox?

Loki

5th June 2003, 06:39 PM

Christian,

So many issues!

What I'm trying to show is that it is valid because God does not jugde us on our past actions to determine if we will go to heaven.
No, your god judges us on one single thought!

I'm attempting to show this by demonstrating that the *secular moral compass* does not exist.
I fail to see how this follows. Can you fill in the following logical sequence for me...

Premise 1 : The secular moral compass does not exist.
Premise 2 : .....
....
Conclusion : Therefore Christian deathbed redemption is valid.

I really don't see how you intend to get from "Premise 1" to "Conclusion".

There is no way Diogenes or you can judge who is good or bad, evil or benign based on the *secular humanism*.
Nonsense. There are several alternatives to "universal morality". The fact that you don't wish to embrace them does not equate to "they don't exist".

Anthropology utterly destroys secular morality.
I'd say the opposite - 'not all causes are equal'. Morality lies in the exercise of human thought, not in the pressures of a famine.

So, a secular humanist cannot honestly attack the Christian doctrine because he has not intellectual weapons to do so.
I assume what you mean here is that if a secular humanist has no morality, then he cannot pass "moral judgements", which means that he cannot condemn the christian notion of redemption as being 'immoral' (since 'immoral' doesn't exist!). Is that it?

Obviously, I think this falls at the first hurdle - morality can exist in secular humanism.

So, how can a secular humanist judge a person to be evil if he is not universally evil. A woman that kills her own child in the US is the most vile and evil creature of society. A women of the tribe that kills her own child is a champion for her society.

As a secular humanist, how do you solve that paradox?
Easy! You really need to read more secular humanist material! Perhaps your background just prevents you from correctly connecting all the dots, even thought you seem to be able to see all the dots!

Secular humanism simply states that morals are the result of the interactions of humans. You, and the anthropologists, obviously agree with this. When Society 'A' interacts with society 'B', it will evolve into society 'C', and the moral 'paradox' will be resolved - over time, and via the use of human reasoning.

I guess you're asking, how could we know which moral code is correct - 'A', 'B' or 'C'. The answer is, whichever works best with the context of society! The "foundation" that a secular humanism strives to base a moral system on is not a external, universal one, but one built upon experience and thought. As such, there may never be such a thing as the "the one right/true way" to deal with issues like abortion or infanticide. The search (the foundation) is not to find the "truth" about infanticide (or abortion, or slavery, homosexuality, or cloning, etc), but to find "the best we currently can devise".

Personally, I cannot see how you would prefer your "christian universal" system. By your own words here, you are happy to say that all those tribal women, over thousands of years, who have killed a child for the good of the tribe are currently condemned for their imoral behaviour. Oops, I forgot! You give anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus a free "get out of hell" pass.

Christian

5th June 2003, 06:48 PM

Man, finally you're engaging me like old times
:D :D

I'll attack (respond) tomorrow. ;)

Dancing David

6th June 2003, 08:01 AM

I can't really add to what Loki said, except to say that religion and morals are two seperate creatures.

Surely a serial killer can't just confess JC on the death bed and go to heaven?

Christian

7th June 2003, 11:07 AM

Loki wrote:
No, your god judges us on one single thought!

Yes, it is all about choice Neo.

I fail to see how this follows. Can you fill in the following logical sequence for me...

Premise 1 : The secular moral compass does not exist.
Premise 2 : .....
....
Conclusion : Therefore Christian deathbed redemption is valid.

I really don't see how you intend to get from "Premise 1" to "Conclusion".

Premise 1: There is no objective right or wrong, which leads to
Premise 2: I can’t judge what is right or wrong for others, which leads to
Premise 3: I can object to the Christian deathbed scenario because it is based on what is right or wrong.

Nonsense. There are several alternatives to "universal morality". The fact that you don't wish to embrace them does not equate to "they don't exist".

I’m not arguing this. I’m saying there is no way Diogenes can say this is good or bad for others, as he cannot say red is good or bad for others.

I'd say the opposite - 'not all causes are equal'. Morality lies in the exercise of human thought, not in the pressures of a famine.

In secular humanism, morality is subjective. That makes it irrelevant as a standard for a group. That lots of people like red doesn’t mean red is a beautiful color.

I assume what you mean here is that if a secular humanist has no morality, then he cannot pass "moral judgements", which means that he cannot condemn the christian notion of redemption as being 'immoral' (since 'immoral' doesn't exist!). Is that it?

No, I’m saying that to secular humanists, morality is subjective. So, he cannot pass judgment because “you cannot pass judgment on subjective matter”. If I say a woman is beautiful, you can’t say I’m wrong (you can but is meaningless)

Obviously, I think this falls at the first hurdle - morality can exist in secular humanism.

It can, it is just irrelevant.

Easy! You really need to read more secular humanist material! Perhaps your background just prevents you from correctly connecting all the dots, even thought you seem to be able to see all the dots!

That doesn’t answer the paradox, does it?

Let’s use your explanation to see the paradox.

Secular humanism simply states that morals are the result of the interactions of humans. You, and the anthropologists, obviously agree with this. When Society 'A' interacts with society 'B', it will evolve into society 'C', and the moral 'paradox' will be resolved - over time, and via the use of human reasoning.

This is not the Paradox.

I guess you're asking, how could we know which moral code is correct - 'A', 'B' or 'C'. The answer is, whichever works best with the context of society!

Subjective things can’t be looked at from the perspective of correct or incorrect. The paradox is that what is correct for you, can be incorrect for someone else and in secular humanism both are correct.

Tell me why should I not take the moral code in A and not use it in B. Abortion is immoral for most in my country, let’s suppose it is not in yours. Why would an Australian be forced to conform to the moral Salvadoran code?

Why would a cannibal that eats children of rival tribes need to change just to fit your standard of morality?

The "foundation" that a secular humanism strives to base a moral system on is not a external, universal one, but one built upon experience and thought. As such, there may never be such a thing as the "the one right/true way" to deal with issues like abortion or infanticide. The search (the foundation) is not to find the "truth" about infanticide (or abortion, or slavery, homosexuality, or cloning, etc), but to find "the best we currently can devise".

If there is no objective measure, who gets to decide what is *best*? And if you say, it is the best for this situation, you run into the problem that now you have created an objective measurable standard, which you already said can’t exist.

Personally, I cannot see how you would prefer your "christian universal" system. By your own words here, you are happy to say that all those tribal women, over thousands of years, who have killed a child for the good of the tribe are currently condemned for their imoral behaviour. Oops, I forgot! You give anyone who hasn't heard of Jesus a free "get out of hell" pass.

To Christians, they are not condemned for any of those actions. That makes perfect sense. And yes, if they have no choice to make, they do get a free pass.

Dancing David:
Surely a serial killer can't just confess JC on the death bed and go to heaven?

Yes, he can. As can mothers in tribes that kill their offspring.

Loki

7th June 2003, 05:37 PM

Christian,

In secular humanism, morality is subjective. That makes it irrelevant as a standard for a group.
I doubt I have the time or energy to explain this to you, but this is not correct. The secular humanist answer lies in the shade sof grey, and you want a discussion only in black and white. I suspect you have been told how humanism and morality intersect by people who are not humanists. Perhaps you need to consult some humanist resources. Even having said that, I will concede that morality is philospohy, not fact, so at the end of any discusion it will simply become 'opinion'. I'd only add that humanism and morailty can logically co-exist (which in no way means that it *must* be true, of course!)

ehbowen

7th June 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I can't really add to what Loki said, except to say that religion and morals are two seperate creatures.

Surely a serial killer can't just confess JC on the death bed and go to heaven?

That is, if memory serves, exactly what happened to Ted Bundy.

Where is the justice in that?

To quote Jerry Pournelle: "If all interested parties are satisfied then justice has probably been served."

Who are the interested parties?

Society at large: Ted Bundy was in fact (and justly) executed for his crimes. He paid the penalty assessed by society. His case was, in essence, transferred to a Higher Court.

The victims : By accepting Ted Bundy as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven and a member of the family of God, God assumed the responsibility for the obligations which Ted Bundy owed. In order to see that accounts are settled equitably, God is now responsible for compensating those who have valid claims against Ted Bundy. I am convinced that God will in fact offer compensation and that each victim involved will accept that compensation as being fair and equitable.

Satan: Satan had the right to claim Ted Bundy as a citizen of his kingdom, where he could have tortured him at leisure or turned him loose to terrorize others under his dominion. Perhaps both at different times. He freely gave up that right in exchange for the opportunity to torture and crucify an innocent Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus: He considered the exchange of his life worthwhile for the opportunity to free a victim from the tyranny of Satan's dominion.

God: Accepting Ted Bundy as a citizen probably set him back a few billion. He can afford it. He takes the long-range view: How much is Satan going to owe [i]him when Satan's case finally comes up for review? It would probably be difficult to express, even with factorials and scientific notation. We may have to invent an entirely new branch of mathematics....

Ted Bundy: He has escaped the tyranny of Hell and become a citizen of Heaven. That does not necessarily mean that everything is smooth sailing for him, any more than it does for a teenager whose parents have just bailed him out of jail for shoplifting. Yes, he no longer faces prison time, but that doesn't mean that when he gets home he doesn't have to answer to Mom and Dad. God may not stick him with the full sum total of what he owes, but he faces several years of mowing lawns and washing dishes before he entirely gets out of the doghouse. He is aware of the alternative, however. He is content.

Skeptical Greg

8th June 2003, 06:47 AM

........tyranny of Hell .........

Interesting perception....

The rest of your story ought to fly with the 8 -12 year old Sunday School crowd...

The idea that God forgives people who choose a life of evil, is an incredible insult to people who choose to do good.

And about the big sacrifice of Jesus. If you were to suggest he is still dead, you might have a point..

Q. When is a sacrifice not a sacrifice?

A. When you don't sacrifice anything...

Christian

8th June 2003, 02:03 PM

Loki wrote:
I doubt I have the time or energy to explain this to you, but this is not correct. The secular humanist answer lies in the shade sof grey, and you want a discussion only in black and white. I suspect you have been told how humanism and morality intersect by people who are not humanists. Perhaps you need to consult some humanist resources. Even having said that, I will concede that morality is philospohy, not fact, so at the end of any discusion it will simply become 'opinion'. I'd only add that humanism and morailty can logically co-exist (which in no way means that it *must* be true, of course!)

This is one of the few cop out answers I’ve seen from you. I’m surprised.

Anyway, why don’t you just admit you can't solve these contradictions in your belief system?

Loki

9th June 2003, 01:29 AM

Christian,

This is one of the few cop out answers I’ve seen from you. I’m surprised.
Consider it jsut frustration that you seemed to ignore what I'd previously written, and once again tried to repeat the "humanist morality makes no sense" line. Radint that yet again suddenly made me realise that you donlt seem to have moved at all from the positon you (and Frank) were running 6 months ago. Call it fatigue, but the idea of rehashing basic humanist principles to you so you can just write "No, but it's CAUSALITY!" has lost it's appeal. Perhaps just a bad day ... give me a few days and perhaps I'll fine the energy to tell you what you don't want to hear, and seem destined to refuse to consider.

Anyway, why don’t you just admit you can't solve these contradictions in your belief system?
Because there are no contradictions. Perhaps you'd care to explain how you believe a human can make moral choices that are neither random nor caused? - ah, but that's been done beofre also, and you never did answer that!

Gregor

9th June 2003, 05:22 AM

Mr. Bowen:

What a strange, non-christian, post-hoc theology you cite. You state, "Accepting Ted Bundy as a citizen probably set him back a few billion." Que?

So God owes people in human currency for permitting salvation? Let's not stop there. Since he's omnipotent, then he must owe people for bad individual's earthly deeds, as well.

How much are the Jews, gypses, Poles, Slavs, etc. owed for the holocaust? - Let's see $1 million each for 12 million people = $12 trillion.

How about the victims of Crusades?
How about the victims of the Inquisition?
How about the Spanish conquest of Central and South America?

Don't let a plaintiff's lawyer get ahold of this, I sense a large class action.

thaiboxerken

9th June 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It seems a lot of Americans are obsessed in the idea of revenge. For example the notion of the death penalty, that you should kill anyone who harms, tries to harm, or may in the future harm you, and things like that. This seems to say that there are those who feel that absolutely no one can be redeemed.

Death penalty is not about revenge, it is a 100% garaunteed solution that the convict will never kill again.

Killing someone who tries to harm me is self-defense, not revenge, a dead someone cannot harm me.

Killing someone that may kill me in the future is not revenge, as revenge is something done AFTER someone feels wronged.

Your conclusion based on these untrue premises is not valid. Even if your premise were true, it doesn't follow that such a person feels there is no redemption (forgiveness) for anyone.

thaiboxerken

9th June 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Diogenes
That is what we have jails for, if a being, say like him who even asked to never be let out must be taken to a place where he can not harm others jail is fine. The killing of a being will not stop others from doing the same.

Jails can be escaped. How many executed criminals escaped death?

The killing of a being stops that being from doing the crime again. It doesn't stop others from doing the same any more or less than jailing him does.

9th June 2003, 10:37 AM

"Killing someone who tries to harm me is self-defense, not revenge, a dead someone cannot harm me."

If you have to kill someone, you must not be a very good martial artist, in terms of brains and control.

Not saying that you are, of course, just any martial artist that has to resort to killing.

-Who

Skeptical Greg

9th June 2003, 10:45 AM

thaiboxerken

9th June 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Whodini
"Killing someone who tries to harm me is self-defense, not revenge, a dead someone cannot harm me."

If you have to kill someone, you must not be a very good martial artist, in terms of brains and control.

Not saying that you are, of course, just any martial artist that has to resort to killing.

-Who

If someone tries to kill me, I will not worry about their safety because that would place me at more risk. If they weild a weapon, like a knife, I will not worry about their safety. If they outnumber me, I will not worry about their safety. If they end up dead or maimed because of this, it's still not revenge.

This really isn't a thread about martial arts, is it?

I am just trying to show that the word "revenge" is being misused in the beginning post.

ehbowen

9th June 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Gregor
Mr. Bowen:

What a strange, non-christian, post-hoc theology you cite. You state, "Accepting Ted Bundy as a citizen probably set him back a few billion." Que?

So God owes people in human currency for permitting salvation? Let's not stop there. Since he's omnipotent, then he must owe people for bad individual's earthly deeds, as well.

How much are the Jews, gypses, Poles, Slavs, etc. owed for the holocaust? - Let's see $1 million each for 12 million people = $12 trillion.

How about the victims of Crusades?
How about the victims of the Inquisition?
How about the Spanish conquest of Central and South America?

I'm condensing the process which I believe will be followed in the Last Judgment to put it into terms with which we can relate.

Nevertheless, in the basic essentials I believe that you are correct. There will be accountability and compensation for past injustices. All of them. Plus interest.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that, in every case, injustices will be measured through the moral filter of postmodern Western sensibilities. I think that it will eventually be agreed, for example, that there is in fact such a thing as the "right of conquest." Not that that will be an absolute. In resolving questions such as those arising from our takeover of the lands of the American Indians, I think one of the key questions will be that of stewardship: What did we accomplish with the land as contrasted to them? At the same time, though, I think it likely that we will be held strictly accountable for every time that we made formal treaties with the Indians and then broke them. We would be well advised to settle out of court in advance....

Don't let a plaintiff's lawyer get ahold of this, I sense a large class action.

Oh, can you imagine....:D

Gregor

10th June 2003, 04:52 AM

Interesting theories. . .

Let me quote from the oracle, "This new learning amazes me. Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes."

justsaygnosis

10th June 2003, 04:24 PM

Suspending all rationality for the sake of chipping in I'd say everyone damn well should have a shot at redemption EVENTUALLY in the skien of eternity.
Skipping a list of all the deplorable crimes there are against individuals and humanity at large why shouldn't the supreme author of nature who allows detestable birth defects and diseases let some lunatic off the hook and give them parole after some million to billion years or so of punishment.
If there was a hell wouldn't there be a need for angels to serve in the capacity of correction's officers?
So much for fantasy...bring on mortality and random occurrence.
We ain't much somedays but we're all we've got everyday.

ehbowen

10th June 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Suspending all rationality for the sake of chipping in I'd say everyone damn well should have a shot at redemption EVENTUALLY in the skien of eternity.

I agree with you. It is implicit in my position. What good is it to receive compensation for a past injustice if you have no place and no way to spend it?

That does not mean that I believe there is no hell. I believe that hell exists, and that those who reject God go there. But I have become convinced that it is God's eventual goal to empty the place out as soon as he can find a way to do so which is compatible with his nature and character and with the principles of justice and law.

That does not mean that I believe that everyone will go to heaven. I believe that heaven is and will remain a very special place, and that citizenship there will be literally priceless. But I believe that, when the time comes, those who are freed from hell will be returned to this earth--or else to colonize and populate other worlds in this universe. Heaven knows there are enough of them.