Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[triadboy]

And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them. To write it down in a book and claim that's where the idea came from is ridiculous.

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks. What kind of moral instruction book is that?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So why doesn't that also apply to morality, especially for those who struggle with it?

Lots of mechanics don't need the manuals. Your average shadetree mechanic needs them.

Such a guide would not and could not tell us what is right and wrong only what society believes to be right and wrong.

Don't some in every society need such guidance?

Such a guide would only enable you to peaceably co-exist in a society. Cannibals would have a different guide than others. But these aren't really moral guides these are ethics and laws.

So should I accept the morals of cannibals?

Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?

Quote:
Yes. Some of us call it "sin."

Can you demonstrate that "sin" is intrinsic?

Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil?

Why is "sin" so arbitrary? Why do so many cultures have different taboos and sins?

For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc.

Quote:
No, however I'm culturally, intellectually, psychologically, religiously, politcally, economically, and attitudinally different than many. My life experiences, education, and age all play a factor in my moral journey.

The same is true of all of us.

That IS my point. Laws define what is right and wrong for society. They evolve and are notoriously incompatible between cultures. If laws are so arbitrary how can they be said to be "right"?

Yet we all have laws, don't we?

We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine.

Quote:
How is that different than morality, especially since law is commonly believed to be rooted in morality?

Morality is that which is right.

How can that be? "Right" is an absolute. You've already stated that morals differ among humans.

Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to?

Quote:
Sorry. I responded. It is not "non-responsive."

Non-responsive does not mean "didn't respond". It means that your response did not address the issue.

Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond." I responded.

You just didn't like it.

Quote:
It's just a response that you don't like.

No, it was a weaselly way to avoid the question. It was, quite simply, non-responsive. If I ask you if you are hungry and you say the sky is blue that is non-responsive.

It means that I gave you an inappropriate response.

Quote:
How do you know that the Bible shouldn't be used as a moral guide, like you have been propounding on this thread?

If I don't know why it is then at best it is arbitrary. If it is full of barbaric and violent prescriptions for what is considered immoral based on 2,000 year old world views (slavery was acceptable then) then why should it be a moral guide?

Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts.

Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?

These are important and fundamental questions and that I don't know does not render the bible a moral guide. That is argument from ignorance.

Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?
On the contrary, no. I would think that societies should establish laws for the betterment of society and social cohesion. If you want to use that as a moral guide that is fine so long as it does not infringe on me and my personal views of what is and is not moral that does not effect society. Take Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) for instance, it is far too punitive, authoritarian and oppressive to me and I would hate for my morals to be dictated by the perverse beliefs of a few. Let me decide what is moral and immoral and let society tell me what I can and can't do legally.

Isn't that what we have in American society?

[Huntster]

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them.

Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks.

Please provide evidence of that, too.

What kind of moral instruction book is that?

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

[RandFan]

Don't some in every society need such guidance? Only as it relates to social cohesion and order. If that is what you mean by a moral guide then I will agree with you but I'm not at all certain how the bible would fill this role.

So should I accept the morals of cannibals?For the life of me I can't see how this would follow from anything that I have written. It is a non-sequitur. The answer is a resounding no.

Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?I believe that law-books are appropriate guides for living in a society. Sufficient? In an ever evolving society I would have to say no.

Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil? I'm not sure what this means? I know that sociopaths are individuals who have have little to no regard for the feeling and welfare of others. They only know right and wrong as it is told them by society. Right and wrong does not spring from within. So, based on my initial reading of your question I would have to say that socio-paths are exempt from what you and I would consider immoral. They are by definition amoral.

For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc. I agree 100%. This raises some question, why should we see morals as absolute?

Yet we all have laws, don't we?Yes, because humans are a social animal. We understand the need for laws from an evolutionary stand point. If we take this view point it makes sense that laws are somewhat arbitrary.

We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine. Which is why morals of personal behavior should be left up to the individual and laws should be based on community standards and legal philosophy.

How can that be?I'm simply stating the definition. What is moral to me is that which is right to me.

Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to? Of course not. On the contrary that is 180 degrees from my view point. I just don't want to conform to what others view as right and wrong unless it is in regards to compelling societal interest which is another tricky thing altogether but at least in a democracy I have some say so.

Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond." It really doesn't but I hardly see the need to argue over a term. Isn't what important what I meant? I meant that you did not substantively respond.

You just didn't like it.There was nothing to like or dislike. I am only frustrated that you won't respond in a meaningful manner.

It means that I gave you an inappropriate response.It means that you gave an answer that did not communicate any information that would help advance your argument, rebut mine or provide any insight. In short, it was "non-responsive".

Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts. Obviously we must first decide what is right and wrong before we decide to use it as a guide. Do you honestly not see the problem inherent in such a proposition?

Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?I don't understand?

Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?You've lost me. Do you believe the bible to be an appropriate moral guide?

[RandFan]

Isn't that what we have in American society?Yes, and to get back to the start of this particular thread I don't see the bible as having any use as a moral guide. I don't need it, thankfully, because if I did I would find it confusing, arbitrary and capricious.

[RandFan]

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again? I thought Mosaic law was handed down by god and dictated what is moral and what is not moral. How do you know when the bible is a moral guide and when it is simply a set of rules for people living thousands of years ago?

[stillthinkin]

There does not seem to be anything natural or absolute about morals.

What is the origin of "morals" or "moral ideas" or "morality" if it is not natural? Aren't human beings a natural species like any other? Gophers live in holes, grizzlies are territorial, humans have morality. Actually the same could be said more completely about "religious and mythic ideation"... it is universal across the human species.

There does seem to be a near universal desire to live, be free of pain, to seek happiness and to feel empathy for others as well other emotions and desires.
I agree that these are great goods, but very far from universal. Many cultures, including early Semitic cultures, evidence child sacrifice -- from a species survival standpoint this opposes the "desire to live". Admittedly this is not a common practice anymore, unless we include the phenomeon of abortion. "The pursuit of happiness" is an American phrase, drummed into children of the 50 states -- no one else seems to have picked up much on it. Regarding empathy, we feel it for some others, but mostly we feel indifference or even hatred when we look across tribal boundaries.


What we have figured out is that humans sense of right and wrong is based on two primary factors. Genetic predisposition and enviornmental conditioning.
Human behaviour can be based significantly on these things. Morality and behaviour are two very different things.

[RandFan]

What is the origin of "morals" or "moral ideas" or "morality" if it is not natural? Aren't human beings a natural species like any other? Gophers live in holes, grizzlies are territorial, humans have morality. Actually the same could be said more completely about "religious and mythic ideation"... it is universal across the human species. I apologize for the confusion. Yes, morals are natural just not natural outside of a few and perhaps a handful of animal species. What I mean by "not natural" is that we will not find morals in the periodic chart of elements or anything fundamental. Morals are an emergent phenomenon of higher brain functions found only in those animals with an orbitofrontal cortex and a corpus collusum. Morals are not to be found anywhere else.

I agree that these are great goods, but very far from universal.Oh, I disagree profoundly.

Many cultures, including early Semitic cultures, evidence child sacrifice -- from a species survival standpoint this opposes the "desire to live". Was child sacrifice 100%? There is no question that there are a good many exceptions to all of the elements on my list and it is why I said "near universal".

Admittedly this is not a common practice anymore, unless we include the phenomeon of abortion. "The pursuit of happiness" is an American phrase, drummed into children of the 50 states -- no one else seems to have picked up much on it. Regarding empathy, we feel it for some others, but mostly we feel indifference or even hatred when we look across tribal boundaries. Happiness is a blanket term and I will concede that it is poorly chosen by me. Humans seek a sense of well being. This is often achieved after one has been sufficently nourished or had sex. Their are many times in a human's life when the body releases significant quantaties of endorphins and dopamine to give provide a feeling that some would call hapiness and others a sense of well being. I'm not really interested in a semnatical argument but I don't think that is your gist. If not then cool. Can you understand the role of elevated brain chemestry such as dopamine and endorphins in the evolution of morality?

As to empathy and tribalism, humans have many competing systems that control behavior. These are two classics. Tribalism is still strong among humans but we are breaking down many of those barriers. I hardly see tribalism as counter to anything that I have said. Humans are capable of self interest and empathy (which can be traced back to self interest).

Randfan

What we have figured out is that humans sense of right and wrong is based on two primary factors. Genetic predisposition and enviornmental conditioning.

stillthinkin
Human behaviour can be based significantly on these things. Morality and behaviour are two very different things.I don't see that at all. But even if we assume this to be true what does that have to do with the proposition?

[Huntster]

Quote:
Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?

I believe that law-books are appropriate guides for living in a society. Sufficient? In an ever evolving society I would have to say no.

So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?

And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society?

Quote:
Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil?

I'm not sure what this means? I know that sociopaths are individuals who have have little to no regard for the feeling and welfare of others. They only know right and wrong as it is told them by society. Right and wrong does not spring from within. So, based on my initial reading of your question I would have to say that socio-paths are exempt from what you and I would consider immoral. They are by definition amoral.

Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa.

Do you equate her with sociopaths?

Quote:
For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc.

I agree 100%. This raises some question, why should we see morals as absolute?

Yet you seem to demand absolutes. Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.

So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?

Quote:
Yet we all have laws, don't we?

Yes, because humans are a social animal. We understand the need for laws from an evolutionary stand point. If we take this view point it makes sense that laws are somewhat arbitrary.

So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.

Quote:
We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine.

Which is why morals of personal behavior should be left up to the individual and laws should be based on community standards and legal philosophy.

Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct?

Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing?

Quote:
How can that be?

I'm simply stating the definition. What is moral to me is that which is right to me.

But not necessarily to me. Correct?

Quote:
Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to?

Of course not. On the contrary that is 180 degrees from my view point. I just don't want to conform to what others view as right and wrong unless it is in regards to compelling societal interest which is another tricky thing altogether but at least in a democracy I have some say so.

Gee. I feel the same way.

Quote:
Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond."

It really doesn't but I hardly see the need to argue over a term. Isn't what important what I meant? I meant that you did not substantively respond.

I'm often taken to task on this forum for "semantics." I've learned to be very careful. Correct use of the language is a basic survival skill here.

Quote:
Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts.

Obviously we must first decide what is right and wrong before we decide to use it as a guide. Do you honestly not see the problem inherent in such a proposition?

Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis. Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred.

Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labelling the entire affair "immoral."

But I don't have to do so.

Quote:
Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?

I don't understand?

Non responsive.

Quote:
Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?

You've lost me. Do you believe the bible to be an appropriate moral guide?

I believe portions of it to be, yes.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Isn't that what we have in American society?
Yes, and to get back to the start of this particular thread I don't see the bible as having any use as a moral guide. I don't need it, thankfully, because if I did I would find it confusing, arbitrary and capricious.

But others might see portions of the Bible as a moral guide, and as they participate in this democracy with you, they have every right to do so.

Right?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?
I thought Mosaic law was handed down by god and dictated what is moral and what is not moral.

That is correct, however (like you have pointed out elsewhere) laws evolve with the society.

Further, the Ten Commandments stated what the Hebrews were to do and not to do. Penalties for violations weren't included.

How do you know when the bible is a moral guide and when it is simply a set of rules for people living thousands of years ago?

Primarily by reviewing what scholars have opined and debated upon for the past couple of thousand years.

[stillthinkin]

Penn's job is to provide entertainment for a wide audience. Anger and outrage work well. It worked for Dennis Miller and Andy Rooney.
Mockery of others sells and can even be quite funny. Unless I am the target of course. Either way, mockery makes for poor argument, and can also appeal in its grosser forms to something quite undesirable: hatred and contempt. Either way, the discussion with RandFan about this was because the standards of "respect, dignity, and compassion" were proposed as a basis for moral living, or words to that effect. So I had to ask whether Penn was being respectful in this video.

Have you ever complained about this with a fire and brimstone preacher?
Yes I have had to do this. My preferred response is to quote Jesus: "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?" I personally find this quite brilliant: to take the "horrific indifference" of the natural world, and turn it into an argument for fairness and love of those who hate us! Christians should be held up to this standard.

So now the skeptic movement has its own fire and brimstone. Religious people can see how annoying they have been for the past 2000 years.
But are preachers of this sort to be emulated? In fairness to Penn, from what I know of those "suddern preacher folk", I can understand the rage they provoke. The phenomenon is much less common up here in Soviet Kanuckistan. But the issue under discussion was: is this respectful.

The implicit syllogism runs like this:
Respect, Dignity, and Compassion are the basis of morality.
Penn was disrespectful.
Penn's actions were not moral.

Obviously people have already disagreed about both the premises. RandFan modified her claim to be "respect is only the basis of morality insofar as the individual has earned respect" or words to that effect.

[triadboy]

Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

Primitive societies without written guides survived. The concept of "treat others as you want to be treated" is an obvious human imprint because all people have a degree of dignity they wish to uphold. It certainly doesn't need to be written down for it to be real.

Please provide evidence of that, too.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I just mean - a book that contradicts itself as frequently as the Bible cannot be seen as a focused book to guide your actions.

I'm fairly certain that if you provide an example of a moral imperative from the Bible - I will be able to direct you to a passage that contradicts that imperative.

[RandFan]

So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?I'm saying that you can safely decide what society has ruled as right and wrong as far as social behavior goes.

And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society? I would look to societal norms, customs and laws for society and look inward to your own sense of right and wrong for everything else.

Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa. Yes, for the abundant reasons stated.

Do you equate her with sociopaths?I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis. If I had to venture a guess based on my limited knowledge I would have to say no. Just very misguided.

Yet you seem to demand absolutes. Could you give me an example?


Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?Again, can you show me where I ask for absolutes.

So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.Yes, I agree with this.

Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct? Yes, agreed.

Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing? I have never called you amoral. If you acted contrary to social norms that are deemed immoral and it was determined by a qualified physician that you had a mental defect then I would call you amoral. Otherwise I would likely call you immoral. Since AFAIK you haven't acted in such a way then there is no reason for me to so find.

But not necessarily to me. Correct?Again, yes, that is my point. Morals are relative.

Gee. I feel the same way.Cool, then we are in agreement though I hardly see the relevance.

I'm often taken to task on this forum for "semantics." I've learned to be very careful. Correct use of the language is a basic survival skill here. Perhaps the term is a bit esoteric. My usage of "non-responsive" is correct though. And for the record your response is still not a meaningful response.

Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis.If you must first decide what is right to decide what is right in the bible then what is the point? Just decide what is right and skip the bible. To what end does the bible serve? At best you are cherry picking your data. It's conformation bias. That which supports what you already believe to be right is accepted and that which you already believe to be wrong is rejected.

Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred. Interesting but hardly of any significance. There simply not enough examples to form any meaningful conclusions.

Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labeling the entire affair "immoral." I have another option. We can look at the entire work as a collection of mythology, allegory, history and evolution of philosophy helping us to understand a small part of the underpinnings of our moral thought.

But I don't have to do so.I really wish you would stop with this tired straw man. I have stated over and over that you are free to do as you want as far as I'm concerned, so long as you don't hurt someone or break the law. I would gladly come to your defense to live as your conscious dictates. If anyone gives you a hard time about your rights to live the way you believe is correct then please tell me and I will join the argument on your side. Until then could you please stop assuming that I don't believe you have the right to live, think and behave according to your own conscious?

Non responsive.No, this is an inappropriate use of the term. I honestly don't understand what you meant.

I believe portions of it to be, yes.I'm sorry that the irony of that is lost on you.

[stillthinkin]

So, you know that the scriptures are wrong but you don't think anyone should say anything for fear that some people might be offended? Does that about cover it?
In the video, Shermer does not say that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are "wrong", he says that much of the writings are mythic and not to be taken literally. The major issue seems to be with thinking that the bible should be taken literally and can be substantiated scientifically. This seems to be the view held up as wrong, and which Penn holds up to mockery.

For example, Shermer says: "these [the two creation stories, Noah, Moses] are not factual stories to be taken as historical events, they are really stories about how we should live our lives, they're moral homilies, what can i personally get out of the bible for me today - thats what these stories are about... to try to think literally about them is, you are missing the point of the bible". I agree with Shermer.

Penn might not go that far in his "appreciation" for the stories, since his approach is more based on mockery.

[RandFan]

But others might see portions of the Bible as a moral guide, and as they participate in this democracy with you, they have every right to do so.

Right? Sure, but then they are simply cherry picking those portions that fit with what they already decided was right and wrong. They're reasoning is post-hoc.

[RandFan]

That is correct, however (like you have pointed out elsewhere) laws evolve with the society.Couldn't god figure out from the beginning what was right and wrong and tell the people? If I view the evolution of moral philosophy from a parsimonious view point I can't find god. Why did Hebrew moral philosophy greatly advance subsequent to Greek advancements in philosophy?

Further, the Ten Commandments stated what the Hebrews were to do and not to do. Penalties for violations weren't included. Could you expand?

[Huntster]

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

Primitive societies without written guides survived. The concept of "treat others as you want to be treated" is an obvious human imprint because all people have a degree of dignity they wish to uphold. It certainly doesn't need to be written down for it to be real.

That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks.
Quote:
Please provide evidence of that, too.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Can I provide a bit of context (in other words, the rest of the Psalm)?:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat mourning and weeping when we remembered Zion. On the poplars of that land we hung up our harps. There our captors asked us for the words of a song; Our tormentors, for a joyful song: "Sing for us a song of Zion!"

But how could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land? If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither. May my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, If I do not exalt Jerusalem beyond all my delights. Remember, LORD, against Edom that day at Jerusalem. They said: "Level it, level it down to its foundations!"

Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.

Quote:
Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I just mean - a book that contradicts itself as frequently as the Bible cannot be seen as a focused book to guide your actions.

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

[RandFan]

In the video, Shermer does not say that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are "wrong", he says that much of the writings are mythic and not to be taken literally. The major issue seems to be with thinking that the bible should be taken literally and can be substantiated scientifically. This seems to be the view held up as wrong, and which Penn holds up to mockery.

For example, Shermer says: "these [the two creation stories, Noah, Moses] are not factual stories to be taken as historical events, they are really stories about how we should live our lives, they're moral homilies, what can i personally get out of the bible for me today - thats what these stories are about... to try to think literally about them is, you are missing the point of the bible". I agree with Shermer.

Penn might not go that far in his "appreciation" for the stories, since his approach is more based on mockery. I am willing to come to the defense of Christians where I think it warranted. I don't think that it is warranted in this instance. I think the bible worthy of mockery because quaint allegories and ancient mythology have come to be taken to be scripture. I guess its not the bible that is being mocked but rather the spiritual ardor or reverence given the bible. Such views are simply not deserved, IMO. Mockery is all but useless to those who already view the bible with such passion and commitment but to those who are on the fence it can be profound.

[RandFan]

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.Really, you would kill the women and children? Is that in line with the catechism you linked to earlier?

ETA: How does this square with the teachings of Christ to forgive?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that you can safely decide what society has ruled as right and wrong as far as social behavior goes.

So, our best "moral guide" are our lawbooks, correct?

Quote:
And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society?

I would look to societal norms, customs and laws for society and look inward to your own sense of right and wrong for everything else.

So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality?

Quote:
Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa.

Yes, for the abundant reasons stated.

Quote:
Do you equate her with sociopaths?

I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis. If I had to venture a guess based on my limited knowledge I would have to say no. Just very misguided.

Was she moral, or immoral?

Quote:
Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

Could you give me an example?

How about your very next response:

Quote:
Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.

I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

Quote:
So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?

Again, can you show me where I ask for absolutes.

How about your previous reply?

Quote:
So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.

Yes, I agree with this.

Quote:
Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct?

Yes, agreed.

So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing?

Quote:
Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing?

I have never called you amoral. If you acted contrary to social norms that are deemed immoral and it was determined by a qualified physician that you had a mental defect then I would call you amoral. Otherwise I would likely call you immoral. .....

Being amoral requires a physical diagnosis?

Quote:
Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis.

If you must first decide what is right to decide what is right in the bible then what is the point? Just decide what is right and skip the bible. To what end does the bible serve?

A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.

At best you are cherry picking your data.

And that statement is more evidence of your demand for absolutes.

It's conformation bias.

Not if the reading/accepting occurs first.

That which supports what you already believe to be right is accepted and that which you already believe to be wrong is rejected.

Only if it is universal, and my morals don't change. Further, if the reading/accepting occurs first, or is instilled in me by my primary education and guidance of my parents, it is the foundation, not confirmation.

Quote:
Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred.

Interesting but hardly of any significance. There simply not enough examples to form any meaningful conclusions.

It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children.

Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry.

Quote:
Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labeling the entire affair "immoral."

I have another option. We can look at the entire work as a collection of mythology, allegory, history and evolution of philosophy helping us to understand a small part of the underpinnings of our moral thought.

Hey, I can go for that.

Quote:
But I don't have to do so.

I really wish you would stop with this tired straw man. I have stated over and over that you are free to do as you want as far as I'm concerned, so long as you don't hurt someone or break the law. I would gladly come to your defense to live as your conscious dictates. If anyone gives you a hard time about your rights to live the way you believe is correct then please tell me and I will join the argument on your side. Until then could you please stop assuming that I don't believe you have the right to live, think and behave according to your own conscious?

You can write that, agree that morals are a personal thing, yet then write this?:

Quote:
I believe portions of it to be, yes.

I'm sorry that the irony of that is lost on you.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.
Really, you would kill the women and children?

Not specifically or individually. I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Is that in line with the catechism you linked to earlier?

Yes, it is. And it is also what would likely be be expected of me by my political and military leaders, too.

ETA: How does this square with the teachings of Christ to forgive?

It is very possible to forgive dead people.

[stillthinkin]

Mockery is all but useless to those who already view the bible with such passion and commitment but to those who are on the fence it can be profound.
This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose.

[qayak]

The implicit syllogism runs like this:
Respect, Dignity, and Compassion are the basis of morality.
Penn was disrespectful.
Penn's actions were not moral.

Obviously people have already disagreed about both the premises. RandFan modified her claim to be "respect is only the basis of morality insofar as the individual has earned respect" or words to that effect.

You are giving too broad of a base for respect, dignity and compassion when dealing with morality. Being a moral person does not mean I have to have respect for all ideas that come down the road. It simply means that I have a basic respect for people. For instance, I have respect for many religious people but I do not respect their religious beliefs at all.

In my view the question is not whether Penn was disrespectful, the question was, did he give the required minimum respect for a person without having to allow respect for that person's beliefs.

Burning a bible is not disrespectful to any person.

Calling the scriptures myths is not disrespectful to any person.

Calling a person an idiot for believing the scriptures could be direspectful unless it can be shown that the person has no reason to believe the scriptures are wrong. In other words, if they are an idiot, calling them one isn't disrespectful.

I didn't see anything wrong with what Penn did although I don't like his style particularly. It is one way to get his message across.

[qayak]

This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose.

Are you implying that Penn's mockery of the bible is the same as the Nazi's dehumanization of the Jews prior to WWII, of which mockery was a tiny part? :eek:

Are you implying that RandFan is a Nazi? :jaw-dropp


I think . . . . . . :dl:

[RandFan]

So, our best "moral guide" are our lawbooks, correct?I'm not sure why you are intent on having moral guides. Our laws are the best guides for appropriate social behavior in a legal context. Ethics are appropriate in professional settings and societal norms and etiquette are appropriate for all other social interactions. If you want to know what is right and wrong for anything not covered by these sets of rules and customs I would recommend looking inside yourself. I suspect you will find a sense of right and wrong there.

So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality? Do you live among the Asmat tribe of New Guinea? If not then I suspect the answer is no? What do you think?

Was she moral, or immoral?That's a good question. I suspect she sincerely believed that what she was doing was right. From her POV she was moral. From my perspective what she was doing was wrong. I don't believe in god. I believe the welfare of humans in this life is paramount.

H: Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

RF: Could you give me an example?

H: How about your very next response:

RF: I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.
How is that an example of an absolute?

So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing? Because it is pro-hoc reasoning. You decide first what is right then you go find those things that fit with your views.

Being amoral requires a physical diagnosis?Based on my understanding, yes.

A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. A reminder of what? Be kind to slaves? What wisdom, you should stone adulterers?

And that statement is more evidence of your demand for absolutes. I don't understand, this does not follow. How is that a demand for absolutes?

Not if the reading/accepting occurs first. How do you know which parts to accept? I ask this in all sincerity. If you lack a sense of right and wrong how do you know which parts in the bible are right and which are wrong?

Only if it is universal, and my morals don't change. Further, if the reading/accepting occurs first, or is instilled in me by my primary education and guidance of my parents, it is the foundation, not confirmation. ? I don't understand. You are simply restating my position. Your parents told you what is right and the bible simply confirms that. What is universal? Is owning slaves or killing children universal?

It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children. Does that make it right to kill children? What does your catechism state regarding murder? How are children moral agents and what have they done to warrant such a punishment?

Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry. Isn't this the attitude of the Muslim terrorists? They are not interested in such details as innocent women and children. They simply want to kill us all. I find this troubling and counter to the teachings of Christ which I think demonstrates the problem of using the Bible as a moral guide. Should you follow Christ and forgive or should you follow Moses and kill them all?

You can write that, agree that morals are a personal thing, yet then write this?:I see no contradiction. If you choose to view the bible one way and I choose to view it another then that is our respective right. I can debate and discuss without taking away your rights. I'm not telling you to do what I want you to do. I'm trying to make compelling arguments why I think the bible a poor moral guide.

[stillthinkin]

I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.
Destroying entire cities would constitute a breach of "just war theory", which I believe most Catholic thinkers on the subject subscribe to. Ditto regarding destroying their "way of life". The last time the West defeated Islam (Battle of Lepanto 1571 AD) we were content merely to destroy their navy. If I recall, that was a Catholic triumph organized by the pope. There was no "kill them to the last" pursuit of the defeated forces afterwards.


It is very possible to forgive dead people.
I think the idea in the Bible, and in the RCC, is to forgive people instead of killing them, if at all possible. It is true that neither Jesus nor the RCC condemn military service.

[RandFan]

Not specifically or individually. I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Yes, it is. And it is also what would likely be be expected of me by my political and military leaders, too.

It is very possible to forgive dead people. Wow, so kill them first and then forgive? That's a new take on Christian forgiveness I must admit. It's also rather scary. I suspect this is the attitude of many Muslims. They truly believe that Israel and by extension the United States have enslaved and oppressed them and it is their duty to destroy us.

:( I wonder if enlightenment will ever catch on. Not if the bible is a guide. :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

This is quite correct. A great example from recent history: the comedic mockery of the Jew was a profoundly influential element in Nazi propaganda in the 1930's. Mockery is a tool, I suppose. Godwin is not dead. Who knew? :D

[stillthinkin]

Are you implying that Penn's mockery of the bible is the same as the Nazi's dehumanization of the Jews prior to WWII, of which mockery was a tiny part? :eek:

Are you implying that RandFan is a Nazi? :jaw-dropp


I think . . . . . . :dl:

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

RandFan, whatever gayak would like to infer from what I said, let me clarify: I do not think you are a Nazi. I read on Wiki that it is basically rude to refer to the Nazi's in conversation with Americans... if I have insulted you, or anyone I apologize.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.

[RandFan]

I would like to make a concession. I believe that it is possible for the bible to make compelling arguments as to right and wrong and if those arguments are taking on their own then those could be a basis for moral actions. If portions of the bible appeal to our sense of right and wrong and expands our viewpoint in some aspects then I believe it is possible for the bible to be, in part, a moral guide.

I'm rethinking some of the philosophy found in the New Testament and I think it possible for such an argument to be made. I won't completely reject the bible as a moral guide, for the moment, but I will re-examine it provisionally.

It's been more than 20 years since my mission and I have not thought about these matters much in that time. I think it worthy to question assumptions so I'm taking another look for the time being.

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

RandFan, whatever gayak would like to infer from what I said, let me clarify: I do not think you are a Nazi. I read on Wiki that it is basically rude to refer to the Nazi's in conversation with Americans... if I have insulted you, or anyone I apologize.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.

[triadboy]

That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

I guess it's just obvious to me. I think it centers on psychological feelings of remorse. Because we humans have a brain which can internalize what others feel, we can understand the consequences of our actions upon others...and finally realize we would or would not like these actions inflicted on us.

The Golden Rule certainly doesn't begin with Jesus or even the OT. Buddha was all over that 500 years before Jesus. Hammurabi before the OT.

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage. I'd kill 'em all.


The Babylonian Exile was only about 50 years. (instead of "hundreds"). And it couldn't have been too terrible an exile - when Cyrus released the Jews - a lot of them stayed in Babylon.

Your ability to waste children is very Yahweh-like. You would make a great Islamic/Jewish god. You would be a bad NT god though. Sorry.

[qayak]

Is that little doggie laughing at me? Perhaps mockery is actually a rather pathetic tool, after all.

It is laughing at what you said. There are at least four fallacies in that one little statement.

gayak, the contempt of Jews in the 30's was spread largely through the use mockery. The periodicals of the time were relentless in their pursuit of amusement at the expense of Jews.

1- The name is qayak not gayak.

2- Yes, there was a mocking of the Jews but worse, there was a total dehumanization of them. During WWII, the Nazis showed the execution of Jews on newsreels, in theatres. They were killed in all sorts of barbaric ways and the German people flocked to the shows. When the attempt was made on Hitler's life, the conspirators were killed in the same manners and it was shown in theatres as well. Germans walked out of the theatres stating that that was not a fit way for humans to be killed. This didn't come from mockery alone or even mainly.

3- Bringing the Nazis into the argument and claiming mockery led to their treatment of the Jews is just wrong. Mockery takes place all the time without leading to genocide. The Nazis of 1930's have no relation to Penn of 2005 so why the comparison? Because it is an extreme example that you think will make a point. It doesn't, it makes your argument absurd. We can bring in far more samples where mockery has led to great and good changes in the world.

That's what the puppy was laughing at.

[qayak]

I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.

The only offense qayak is beginning to take is at the misspelling of his name. Don't force me to unleash my Squirrelly Wrath on you!! :D

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

[stillthinkin]

I would like to make a concession. I believe that it is possible for the bible to make compelling arguments as to right and wrong and if those arguments are taking on their own then those could be a basis for moral actions. If portions of the bible appeal to our sense of right and wrong and expands our viewpoint in some aspects then I believe it is possible for the bible to be, in part, a moral guide.

I'm rethinking some of the philosophy found in the New Testament and I think it possible for such an argument to be made. I won't completely reject the bible as a moral guide, for the moment, but I will re-examine it provisionally.

It's been more than 20 years since my mission and I have not thought about these matters much in that time. I think it worthy to question assumptions so I'm taking another look for the time being.

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Thanks,

RandFan

That is quite edifying, and encourages me on my own pursuit of the truth.

I look at it this way: the bible does not make arguments, people make arguments. Books do not speak, people speak. In cultures before writing, vast long texts were memorized by those whose task it was to be the "repository of the story". Some individuals might not even have understood entirely what they were memorizing... but they memorized it. These stories, commited to memory generation after generation, developed a life of their own, they grew with their people. This is how the bible began. There is not a hint of an expectation that these stories should be consistent or rational or "literal history". Eventually, these stories were written down, and this is where a good chunk of the Old Testament comes from.

Any written document is an extension of the memory and ideas of a human person or persons. The bible is one such document, memorized and then written by hundreds of people over many thousands of years. The Quran was written, I believe, by one person over the course of a short span; ditto for the Book of Mormon (I realize they believe it was taken from ancient tablets - I believe it is a product of the imagination of Joseph Smith). For Jews and Christians and Muslims and Mormons, these documents take on a sacred character, because they believe that God has spoken to them and is speaking to them through their history and religious leaders. I believe that the primary purpose of the bible, and other such documents, should be considered mainly religious, but also of cultural and historic significance to people who do not share their beliefs. The bible is a particularly interesting case because of its evolution over thousands of years; I find the Quran and the Book of Mormon less interesting because they were a one-man show.

[stillthinkin]

I promise I took no offense. Don't worry about it. Godwin has become a quick source of humor IMO. I can't speak for gayak.
Thank you. What is a "Godwin"? I had assumed it some inside joke.

[qayak]

Thank you. What is a "Godwin"? I had assumed it some inside joke.

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

[stillthinkin]

It is laughing at what you said. There are at least four fallacies in that one little statement.


1- The name is qayak not gayak.

That's not a fallacy... but I apologize sincerely. Is this a reference to the watercraft? If so, charming! I am a Canuck after all...


2- Yes, there was a mocking of the Jews but worse, there was a total dehumanization of them. During WWII, the Nazis showed the execution of Jews on newsreels, in theatres. They were killed in all sorts of barbaric ways and the German people flocked to the shows. When the attempt was made on Hitler's life, the conspirators were killed in the same manners and it was shown in theatres as well. Germans walked out of the theatres stating that that was not a fit way for humans to be killed. This didn't come from mockery alone or even mainly.

I am not familiar with the newsreels you speak of. Mockery was the first step in the Nazi programme of dehumanization. We first dehumanize people in our minds and hearts through derision, contempt, and mockery. If dehumanization is a bad thing, then mockery cant be too good a thing.


3- Bringing the Nazis into the argument and claiming mockery led to their treatment of the Jews is just wrong. Mockery takes place all the time without leading to genocide. The Nazis of 1930's have no relation to Penn of 2005 so why the comparison? Because it is an extreme example that you think will make a point. It doesn't, it makes your argument absurd. We can bring in far more samples where mockery has led to great and good changes in the world.

I won't make the mistake of bringing up Nazis again. Now I dislike them even more.


That's what the puppy was laughing at.
I am much more grateful for your clarifications than for your puppy's "laughing at" me. Here I had hoped he was "laughing with".

I am also grateful there is no #4.

[RandFan]

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Linked.

[RandFan]

I look at it this way: the bible does not make arguments, people make arguments. Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc. I'm interested in looking at the logic behind those. That's all. Let's not get involved in a semantical debate.

[stillthinkin]

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
ok.. TOO funny! Well, what about Quirk's Exception? I mean, perhaps, just perhaps, I wanted to end the post...

How about this... no more nazi talk from me. I have suffered my second humiliation, and at my own hand too...

Thank you all for not invoking Godwin's law seriously on me.

[stillthinkin]

Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc. I'm interested in looking at the logic behind those. That's all. Let's not get involved in a semantical debate.
Understood. My only point was that the bible is not something independent of humanity, it is a thoroughly human artifact. Why it became imbued culturally with such magical properties in the 16th century was answered to my satisfaction by Marshal McLuhan.

[Huntster]

Quote:
So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality?

Do you live among the Asmat tribe of New Guinea?

No.

If not then I suspect the answer is no? What do you think?

I asked you first.

Quote:
H: Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

RF: Could you give me an example?

H: How about your very next response:

RF: I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

How is that an example of an absolute?

You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are.

Quote:
So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing?

Because it is pro-hoc reasoning. You decide first what is right then you go find those things that fit with your views.

I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"?

Quote:
A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. A reminder of what? Be kind to slaves?

As a matter of fact, yes.

What wisdom, you should stone adulterers?

Nope. At least according to Christ.

Quote:
...Is owning slaves or killing children universal?

Over the history of mankind, yes.

Quote:
It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children.

Does that make it right to kill children?

"Right"?

Nope.

What does your catechism state regarding murder?

It is a mortal sin.

How are children moral agents and what have they done to warrant such a punishment?

Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket).

Quote:
Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry.

Isn't this the attitude of the Muslim terrorists?

Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.

They are not interested in such details as innocent women and children. They simply want to kill us all. I find this troubling and counter to the teachings of Christ which I think demonstrates the problem of using the Bible as a moral guide.

Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.

Should you follow Christ and forgive or should you follow Moses and kill them all?

I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Destroying entire cities would constitute a breach of "just war theory", which I believe most Catholic thinkers on the subject subscribe to.

I don't agree. And, besides, it's not my call.

Ditto regarding destroying their "way of life". The last time the West defeated Islam (Battle of Lepanto 1571 AD) we were content merely to destroy their navy. If I recall, that was a Catholic triumph organized by the pope. There was no "kill them to the last" pursuit of the defeated forces afterwards.

If their way of life includes violence or domination over me and mine, their way of life has to go. At least that part.

I want them to adopt my "live and let live" philosophy.

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is very possible to forgive dead people.

I think the idea in the Bible, and in the RCC, is to forgive people instead of killing them, if at all possible.

I agree.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
....It is very possible to forgive dead people.
Wow, so kill them first and then forgive?

Not necessarily in that order.

That's a new take on Christian forgiveness I must admit.

You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.

It's also rather scary.

I'm sorry you're scared.

I suspect this is the attitude of many Muslims.

Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different.

They truly believe that Israel and by extension the United States have enslaved and oppressed them and it is their duty to destroy us.

Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.

You?

[Huntster]

....If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Matthew 22:37-40 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm)

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

I guess it's just obvious to me. I think it centers on psychological feelings of remorse. Because we humans have a brain which can internalize what others feel, we can understand the consequences of our actions upon others...and finally realize we would or would not like these actions inflicted on us.

Some people, even after intensive training, have little or no remorse for even horrendously evil acts.

The Golden Rule certainly doesn't begin with Jesus or even the OT. Buddha was all over that 500 years before Jesus. Hammurabi before the OT.

Yup.

Your ability to waste children is very Yahweh-like. You would make a great Islamic/Jewish god. You would be a bad NT god though. Sorry.

You're right. I would make a horrible God.

But I'm human. I don't qualify.

[RandFan]

No. Well I guess that settles it then.

I asked you first.And I answered, I said that I suspect that the answer is no. Now that I know that you don't live among the Asmat tribe then my suspicion was correct.

You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are. I find the bible barbaric, arbitrary and capricious. I find it difficult to decide what is and is not meant to be a moral guide. Why would a guide inspired by god be so arbitrary?

I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"? Because you pick and choose the parts that square with your upbringing. It is a classic definition of pro-hoc. If you, as an adult having no religious upbringing or a non-Christian upbringing, were to seek the truth and find it in the bible after weighing evidence it would be more substantive.

As a matter of fact, yes. Well that's nice. I hope you remember that when you have slaves.

Nope. At least according to Christ. So which rules do we keep and which do we get rid of according to Christ?

Over the history of mankind, yes.Really? Every culture on every continent had slaves? The Inuit? Are you certain about that?

"Right"?

Nope.I'm sure glad we got that straight. I'm sorry Moses was never told.

It is a mortal sin. But you would kill the children of your captors?

Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket). Then why punish them?

Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.How is it different?

Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.Assuming he lived I would agree with you. How does that square with what you said earlier:

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.Isn't that which is "legitimate" simply in the eye of the beholder? I'm quite certain the Palestinians view their leaders as legitimate.

[RandFan]

Not necessarily in that order. I'm sure your forgiveness of them just before you killed them would be of great comfort. And I'm sure it would make Jesus happy.

You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.I guess so. When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do." My understanding is that this is what is expected of us.

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. --Luke 6:28

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. --Matthew 18:21-22

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. --Matthew 5:38-42

I'm sorry you're scared.No, I did not say I was scared I said that folks with your attitude are scary. It is precisely that kind of attitude that leads to atrocities. Perhaps Christ's message of forgiveness is one moral that I wish Christians would adopt arbitrary or not.

Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different. So what? The results are the same. Death and carnage justified by religious fervor.

Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.More than enough to fly planes into the twin towers.

You?I believe that 9/11 is an example of religious extremism.

[triadboy]

When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do."

Jesus' last words depends on which story you read. (which is really strange when you think about it)

[RandFan]

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.
Matthew 22:37-40 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm)

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." Thanks,

Would you care to expand on why you think this is compelling? Don't get me wrong I think I could make an argument but I would like to know your thoughts.

Do you think it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? Earlier you provided a list of priorities including your family, god and country, IIRC. Where does your neighbor fit on that list of priorities?

[stillthinkin]

Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc.
Are you aware of any "argument" in the bible which could qualify as rationally compelling?

AFAIK most if not all of the argument in the bible is argument based on tradition, that is, it is an elaboration on the ideas and stories that have been handed down in the history of the people of Israel.

I realize gave the example earlier of Jesus "arguing from nature" when he says that we should love our enemies because the sun rises and sets and the rain falls on the just and the unjust, but this does not represent "compelling argument". Though I do find it compelling in a sense.

It could be extended to: "if you believe God created the Sun, and if you believe his providence governs the rain and the sunshine, then have you noticed that he does not withold the sun and the rain based on the justice or injustice of the farmer? Do you likewise."

[RandFan]

Are you aware of any "argument" in the bible which could qualify as rationally compelling? Thanks, fair point. I'm not certain to what extent, if any, logically valid arguments there are in the bible. At least not off hand. I think it would have been better of me to have asked for rationally defensible philosophies and/or propositions.

I think loving they neighbor as thy self would fall along the lines of the golden rule which is a very good philosophy for morality and I believe is rationally defensible.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No.

Well I guess that settles it then.

Why?

Quote:
I asked you first.

And I answered, I said that I suspect that the answer is no. Now that I know that you don't live among the Asmat tribe then my suspicion was correct.

Why does my address make a difference?

If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?

Quote:
You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are.

I find the bible barbaric, arbitrary and capricious. I find it difficult to decide what is and is not meant to be a moral guide.

Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral?

Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems?

Why would a guide inspired by god be so arbitrary?

Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.

Quote:
I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"?

Because you pick and choose the parts that square with your upbringing.

I do?

Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"?

Quote:
As a matter of fact, yes.

Well that's nice. I hope you remember that when you have slaves.

I don't own slaves. That's illegal.

If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely.

Quote:
Nope. At least according to Christ.

So which rules do we keep and which do we get rid of according to Christ?

They can be condensed into two:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Quote:
Over the history of mankind, yes.

Really? Every culture on every continent had slaves? The Inuit? Are you certain about that?

I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread.

Quote:
It is a mortal sin.

But you would kill the children of your captors?

Not as a practice.

Quote:
Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket).

Then why punish them?

I wouldn't do so directly.

Quote:
Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.

How is it different?

Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation).

I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society.

Quote:
Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.

Assuming he lived I would agree with you. How does that square with what you said earlier

Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it.

Quote:
I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.

Isn't that which is "legitimate" simply in the eye of the beholder?

Sometimes. For example, if someone is trying to harm me, I can legally and morally use lethal force to stop them. However, my understanding of my opponent's goal is "in the eye of the beholder."

Further, if I am drafted into the military and sent to fight a war, my legitimacy isn't in my power. I'm acting as a member of society, whether or not that society is acting legitimate.

I'm quite certain the Palestinians view their leaders as legitimate.

Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not necessarily in that order.

I'm sure your forgiveness of them just before you killed them would be of great comfort.

Actually, I doubt that.

And I'm sure it would make Jesus happy.

I hope so.

Quote:
You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.

I guess so. When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do." My understanding is that this is what is expected of us.

Yup.

So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did?

Quote:
I'm sorry you're scared.

No, I did not say I was scared I said that folks with your attitude are scary.

If you are not scared, how is it scary?

It is precisely that kind of attitude that leads to atrocities.

I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?

Is the law faulty?

Perhaps Christ's message of forgiveness is one moral that I wish Christians would adopt arbitrary or not.

If they did, and did all along, there would probably not be many left.

They'd all be dead.

Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral?

Quote:
Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different.

So what? The results are the same. Death and carnage justified by religious fervor.

When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion?

Quote:
Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.

More than enough to fly planes into the twin towers.

And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?.................

Quote:
You?

I believe that 9/11 is an example of religious extremism.

That may be true.

I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RandFan
If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.
Originally Posted by Huntster
Matthew 22:37-40


Quote:
"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Thanks,

Would you care to expand on why you think this is compelling? Don't get me wrong I think I could make an argument but I would like to know your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.

Do you think it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself?

You betcha.

Do you love your neighbor as yourself?

I try.

Earlier you provided a list of priorities including your family, god and country, IIRC. Where does your neighbor fit on that list of priorities?

They fit with "community" and "society."

[RandFan]

Why? You agree that morals are arbitrary based in part on culture and custom. If you don't possess those cultures or customs then there is no reason for you to have those morals.

Why does my address make a difference?(see above)

If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?Definitely the laws. Individuals often have morals that differ from the norm. Customs and behaviors are a personal choice.

Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral? I don't know how to explain to you what you can't see. I can decide what is moral. If I already know what is moral then why do I need a guide?

Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems? The bible is filled with acts ostensibly carried out by the direction of god. Are you saying we are not to infer anything about the morality of those acts?

Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.Yes, I'm not sure if you agree though. You seem to want it both ways. Could you come to a decision?

Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"? Why would god give instructions to his people that are immoral?

I don't own slaves. That's illegal.And immoral by today's standards but apparently god neglected to tell his chosen people that.

If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely. I can understand owning slaves if god is not involved. If god is involved I can't understand it. How could god not condemn something that is so pernicious?

They can be condensed into two:And the 10 commandments? It's ok to murder so long as you love god?

I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread. Couldn't god explain to people that it was wrong?

Not as a practice. Sounds morally ambiguous. Do you really not know?

I wouldn't do so directly. That sounds Christan, causing suffering is ok so long as it isn't directly caused.

Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation). They say they are killing those who have caused them harm.

Assuming what you say is true, that is "if", it is a distinction without difference. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It's easy to get around this if you are creative enough in your justification.

I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society. That's not what you said earlier.

Huntster

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all. "kill them all". After the fact.


Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it. Sounds like the Muslim rationalization. They to reason that their religious leaders have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life. Jim Jones' followers reasoned that the good Reverend had reached reasonable conclusions regarding suicide.

I prefer to think for myself.

Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............ What possible difference could that make? Your chosen leader is your chosen leader.

[RandFan]

Actually, I doubt that.Maybe you should just kill them then.

I hope so.Jesus delights in the killing of people if they are forgiven? Or are you saying that he is just happy the folks are forgiven and he is not too keen on the whole slaughter thing?

So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did? I don't understand. I thought the message was to forgive not necassarily to offer ourselves as human sacrifice. Is that what you thought the message was?

If you are not scared, how is it scary?Because I fear that attitudes like yours are the ones that lead to atrocities. Such an atrocity, statistically, is unlikely to involve me. I fear for innocent people.

I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?I'm really glad to hear that. In all honesty and sincerity I think that is important and I commend you and I am less worried that you will kill however your kind of attitude is shared by people who would put god before the law.

Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral? Self defense has never been the subject of our discussion. We have been talking about the order by Moses to kill all males of the little ones. I don't really think that is self defense and I doubt you do either.

When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion? You've yet to condemn the slaughter of the little ones by Moses. You said you would do the same, right?

And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?We are better off as a human race if we leave god out of the equation.

I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.Likewise, I'm sure, VERY SURE!

[RandFan]

1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.I'm afraid that as interesting as all that is it isn't compelling as argument. In fact, it isn't really argument. By argument I mean a series of statements in order to establish a definite proposition. What is your proposition and what are your premises?

Thanks I guess. I'll wait for someone else who understands argument.

You betcha.Really? What does it mean? What would a person who loved his neighbor as himself do for his neighbor?

I try.How?

They fit with "community" and "society." So priority wise they are not equal to you?

[stillthinkin]

Thanks, fair point. I'm not certain to what extent, if any, logically valid arguments there are in the bible. At least not off hand. I think it would have been better of me to have asked for rationally defensible philosophies and/or propositions.

I think loving they neighbor as thy self would fall along the lines of the golden rule which is a very good philosophy for morality and I believe is rationally defensible.
I did not mean to imply that there arent lots of logically valid arguments in the bible. There are lots of positions and arguments which are logically valid, in the sense that they are correct conclusions if their premises are correct. What I meant was that in general, the arguments proceed from premises which the people of their faith would accept; premises which on the other hand a skeptic might question, challenge, or reject.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" has certainly been rejected by some thoughtful people - Nietzsche comes to mind, if I have understood him correctly.

[RandFan]

I did not mean to imply that there arent lots of logically valid arguments in the bible. There are lots of positions and arguments which are logically valid, in the sense that they are correct conclusions if their premises are correct. What I meant was that in general, the arguments proceed from premises which the people of their faith would accept; premises which on the other hand a skeptic might question, challenge, or reject.

"Love thy neighbour as thyself" has certainly been rejected by some thoughtful people - Nietzsche comes to mind, if I have understood him correctly.:) "The mirror is one, but the reflections are many. The verse is one, but the translations are many."
--Nietzsche

You've kinda beat me to the punch with Huntster. Shame on you. Oh, and it's considered bad form to quote someone who is the subject of another's sig. ;)

I agree with you but we can still discuss and debate the validity of the argument. Nietzsche isn't the end all of the debate though I certainly would include his thoughts (as though they were my own) in any discussion. I certainly don't think Huntster would have ever known.

[stillthinkin]

You've kinda beat me to the punch with Huntster. Shame on you. Oh, and it's considered bad form to quote someone who is the subject of another's sig.;)
Sorry if i spoiled your fun! I think Hunster can handle himself pretty well. I was responding to your response to me, i think... did I do something in bad form? Have I commited yet another self-humiliation? Please clarify.


I agree with you but we can still discuss and debate the validity of the argument. Nietzsche isn't the end all of the debate though I certainly would include his thoughts (as though they were my own) in any discussion. I certainly don't think Huntster would have ever known.
I do not think Nietzsche was correct, he was just an example of someone who argued against the golden rule. It is hard to find people who do that. You say yourself that the golden rule is rationally defensible.

[RandFan]

Sorry if i spoiled your fun! I think Hunster can handle himself pretty well. I was responding to your response to me, i think... did I do something in bad form? Have I commited yet another self-humiliation? Please clarify.No, not at all. You are doing great. Relax. :) I'm really glad you are here.

When you see the winking smilie, ;), it's a good indication not to take what ever is said too seriously.

I do not think Nietzsche was correct, he was just an example of someone who argued against the golden rule. It is hard to find people who do that. You say yourself that the golden rule is rationally defensible.I don't agree with Nietzsche on this point either. Yes, I do believe that the golden rule is rationally defensible. Though very good arguments can be made against it.

[stillthinkin]

No, not at all. You are doing great. Relax. :) I'm really glad you are here.
Warm fuzzies! :D Appreciate your feedback.

When you see the winking smilie, ;), it's a good indication not to take what ever is said too seriously.
I thought it might mean that. Nevertheless I will plan to review the rules/etiquette.

I don't agree with Nietzsche on this point either. Yes, I do believe that the golden rule is rationally defensible. Though very good arguments can be made against it.
Well there's the rub. There does not seem to be any premise that a person cannot deny on at least rationalized grounds. Logic has no content. Therefore we are capable of rationalizing anything we want.

[RandFan]

Well there's the rub. There does not seem to be any premise that a person cannot deny on at least rationalized grounds. Logic has no content. Therefore we are capable of rationalizing anything we want. I don't know what you mean by logic has no content? Arguments can be made for many things that are not empirical. Some arguments are more persuasive than others. I don't personaly think we should ignore some issues or concepts simply because they are not empirical.

[stillthinkin]

I don't know what you mean by logic has no content? Arguments can be made for many things that are not empirical. Some arguments are more persuasive than others. I don't personaly think we should ignore some issues or concepts simply because they are not empirical.
By "logic has no content" I mean that it does not provide premises. Given the premises, a conclusion might logically follow or it might not. But the premises are always a "given". We get the premises from personal experience, including sense experience, interactions with others... etc.

This applies to empiricism as well. The data are "given" (that is actually what the word means). We argue from the data to conclusions about material reality. Ya ya, hypotheses and all that. Logic provides no content in any situation, including empiricism.

I did not mean to imply that we should ignore any issue!

[RandFan]

By "logic has no content" I mean that it does not provide premises. Given the premises, a conclusion might logically follow or it might not. But the premises are always a "given". We get the premises from personal experience, including sense experience, interactions with others... etc.

This applies to empiricism as well. The data are "given" (that is actually what the word means). We argue from the data to conclusions about material reality. Ya ya, hypotheses and all that. Logic provides no content in any situation, including empiricism.

I did not mean to imply that we should ignore any issue!Ok, then I don't understand your point. And the premises are not "given". It is the responsibility of the person making the argument to make a persuasive argument. We can make all kinds of assumption of the many propositions in the bible and test them logically. I see nothing wrong with this. There is an underlying philosophy to Catholic and Protestant religions and we can explore that philosophy and the underlying propositions. Hell, this is what has been going on at least since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door.

Are you saying that we cannot logically explore moral precepts that have been established in the bible or are you saying that it is a waste of time?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Why?

You agree that morals are arbitrary based in part on culture and custom. If you don't possess those cultures or customs then there is no reason for you to have those morals.

Yes, I do. But the morals that cause Asmats to kill and eat other humans isn't isolated to that community alone. I remind you of Mr. Dahmer.

Of course, Mr. Dahmer was unfortunate enough to behave like an Asmat in Milwaukee.

Quote:
If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?

Definitely the laws. Individuals often have morals that differ from the norm. Customs and behaviors are a personal choice.

Regardless of your address?

Quote:
Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral?

I don't know how to explain to you what you can't see. I can decide what is moral. If I already know what is moral then why do I need a guide?

In other words, you choose?

Quote:
Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems?

The bible is filled with acts ostensibly carried out by the direction of god. Are you saying we are not to infer anything about the morality of those acts?

Ostensibly carried out by the direction of God, as written/interpreted by men.

Quote:
Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.

Yes, I'm not sure if you agree though. You seem to want it both ways. Could you come to a decision?

I have come to a decision. I say that the laws of good and evil are absolute.

Quote:
Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"?

Why would god give instructions to his people that are immoral?

Perhaps they were moral, but you don't see it that way today.

Quote:
I don't own slaves. That's illegal.

And immoral by today's standards but apparently god neglected to tell his chosen people that.

It's legal to own slaves in Israel?

Quote:
If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely.

I can understand owning slaves if god is not involved. If god is involved I can't understand it. How could god not condemn something that is so pernicious?

Perhaps His understanding of slavery and your understanding of slavery are different.

Quote:
They can be condensed into two:

And the 10 commandments? It's ok to murder so long as you love god?

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

No.

Quote:
I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread.

Couldn't god explain to people that it was wrong?

Think they'd listen?

Quote:
Not as a practice.

Sounds morally ambiguous. Do you really not know?

If I was an Air Force pilot, and I was sent into combat, I might drop some ordnance that might kill children. That's not what I'd want, but it might happen.

Stuff happens.

Quote:
I wouldn't do so directly.

That sounds Christan, causing suffering is ok so long as it isn't directly caused.

It's not okay, but it might be reality.

Quote:
Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation).

They say they are killing those who have caused them harm.

Do you believe them?

Assuming what you say is true, that is "if", it is a distinction without difference. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It's easy to get around this if you are creative enough in your justification.

Perhaps. If one was disposed to do so. Especially in an age of lawyers.

That wouldn't be my goal.

Quote:
I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society.

That's not what you said earlier.

And what did I say earlier?

Quote:
Huntster

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

"kill them all". After the fact.

That is not what I wrote. I did not write "after the fact."

Did you add those words to the "quote"?

Quote:
Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it.

Sounds like the Muslim rationalization.

Yes, it does. Sounds like the rationalization of U.S. soldiers, too.

Are Catholics attacking public buildings in the United States?

They to reason that their religious leaders have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life. Jim Jones' followers reasoned that the good Reverend had reached reasonable conclusions regarding suicide.

I prefer to think for myself.

Me, too. And I think I'll be selective where I get my guidance.

And I'm not enough of "a rock" to imagine I've got everything figured out and all is well. I like the fact that I'm a member of a peaceful religion, we're all over the place, I can go to Mass literally anywhere in the world and know precisely what's going on, even though I can't speak the language, and that some of the best scholars in history have considered and commented on doctrine.

Quote:
Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............

What possible difference could that make? Your chosen leader is your chosen leader.

As an individual, yes.

As a nation/community, if you can't agree on whose leading, you're at war.

Like the Palestinians.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Actually, I doubt that.

Maybe you should just kill them then.

Isn't that the stupid scenario you're painting? I'm already killing them. You opined that they'd likely appreciate the fact that I've forgived them as I'm killing them, and I doubted they would.

Would you please keep track of the silliness.

Quote:
I hope so.

Jesus delights in the killing of people if they are forgiven?

No. Nor do I.

Or are you saying that he is just happy the folks are forgiven and he is not too keen on the whole slaughter thing?

He's likely concerned with both, but the whole slaughter thing is our deal. So's the forgiveness (He's already forgiven us).

Quote:
So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did?

I don't understand. I thought the message was to forgive not necassarily to offer ourselves as human sacrifice. Is that what you thought the message was?

With Christ, it was both.

Quote:
If you are not scared, how is it scary?

Because I fear that attitudes like yours are the ones that lead to atrocities.

Atrocities are caused by evil.

Such an atrocity, statistically, is unlikely to involve me. I fear for innocent people.

Me, too. Now. And I'm very thankful for that.

I'm concerned for innocent people.

Quote:
I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?

I'm really glad to hear that. In all honesty and sincerity I think that is important and I commend you and I am less worried that you will kill however your kind of attitude is shared by people who would put god before the law.

I think the law (at least around here) compliments God's laws quite well, including the law regarding lethal force.

Quote:
Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral?

Self defense has never been the subject of our discussion.

It most certainly has, at least from my perspective.

We have been talking about the order by Moses to kill all males of the little ones.

I've also written from the perspective of a warrior obeying the commands of his superiors.

I don't really think that is self defense and I doubt you do either.

No, I don't.

I think it's a matter of civil war.

Quote:
When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion?

You've yet to condemn the slaughter of the little ones by Moses. You said you would do the same, right?

Nor will I condemn it. I have no authority to do so.

Nor would I do such a thing.

Quote:
And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?

We are better off as a human race if we leave god out of the equation.

At all times?

Quote:
I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.

Likewise, I'm sure, VERY SURE!

Likewise what?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.

I'm afraid that as interesting as all that is it isn't compelling as argument. In fact, it isn't really argument. By argument I mean a series of statements in order to establish a definite proposition. What is your proposition and what are your premises?

That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.

Quote:
You betcha.

Really? What does it mean? What would a person who loved his neighbor as himself do for his neighbor?

Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.

Quote:
I try.

How?

By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc.

Quote:
They fit with "community" and "society."

So priority wise they are not equal to you?

Why wouldn't they be?

[stillthinkin]

Ok, then I don't understand your point. And the premises are not "given".
By "given" I merely mean that they have to be accepted by the party or parties attempting a logical argument. If a premise is not accepted by both sides, then it becomes the (hopeful) conclusion of a prior argument with new premises. If we have nothing in common agreement then logic cannot help us. Logic applies to premises, it does not provide premises.

It is the responsibility of the person making the argument to make a persuasive argument.
It is the responsibility of a person attempting to make an argument, to be logical. Persuasion is something else.
We can make all kinds of assumption of the many propositions in the bible and test them logically. I see nothing wrong with this. There is an underlying philosophy to Catholic and Protestant religions and we can explore that philosophy and the underlying propositions.
Yes, in any argument you can always grant a premise you dont necessarily believe yourself. We do this all the time, even as individuals while we think. As we are making decisions, we can go back and forth over things, and eventually accept a premise because we just like the darn conclusions so much! (This would not be a logical conclusion from the premises of course on that basis.)
Hell, this is what has been going on at least since Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses of Contention to the Wittenberg Church door.
Actually, Luther represents a radical rejection of reason, in favour of faith. Some people at the time thought the Catholic church had become too rational, and they wanted a return to "the pure clarity of faith". The position is called "fideism". This is why many Christians today favour bible over science. Historically, the roots of strict logic go back at least to Plato.

Are you saying that we cannot logically explore moral precepts that have been established in the bible or are you saying that it is a waste of time?
We can logically explore any idea we like, including the moral ideas in the bible. Logic will not provide the premises, any more than it provided the bible. Premises do not come from logic. Conclusions do. So a person who does not believe the bible is the word of God might say, "suppose human beings were created in the image and likeness of God... what would follow?" The implications regarding human dignity, for example, could be enormous. We can "suspend disbelief" for the sake of entertainment, inter-cultural dialog, or even argument.

[RandFan]

By "given" I merely mean that they have to be accepted by the party or parties attempting a logical argument. If a premise is not accepted by both sides, then it becomes the (hopeful) conclusion of a prior argument with new premises. If we have nothing in common agreement then logic cannot help us. Logic applies to premises, it does not provide premises.I'm not certain why you suppose that no premises could be agreed on. Every premise is a proposition. Let's start by establishing our premises. Certainly there are points of agreement even if we don't believe the bible to be the word of god. I think you throw your arms up to quickly.

It is the responsibility of a person attempting to make an argument, to be logical. Persuasion is something else.I wholeheartedly disagree. If the argument is sound it should be persuasive. This is the basis of the scientific method. A logical argument is meant to appeal to the intellect. 1+1=2 is persuasive because it is logical.

Yes, in any argument you can always grant a premise you don't necessarily believe yourself. We do this all the time, even as individuals while we think. As we are making decisions, we can go back and forth over things, and eventually accept a premise because we just like the darn conclusions so much! (This would not be a logical conclusion from the premises of course on that basis.) We can use hypothetical to test premises as Einstein did in his famous "if I could ride a beam of light". We can grant the premise to test the hypothetical and then determine if the premise is valid. In this case it wasn't. You can't travel the speed of light.

Actually, Luther represents a radical rejection of reason, in favor of faith.Are you Catholic? This is not meant as an ad hominem argument but only to understand such a statement. Have you read the 95 Theses (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html)? I don't think one can read them honestly and only come away with this view. It simply isn't true. Read the theses and ask yourself what is Luther's complaint? Why does Luther reference indulgences and purgatory? What tradition was common at the time that Luther objected to? Why does Luther talk about purchase? Why does Luther talk about coin? Why does Luther talk about pardons?

I have read the 95 Theses and have studied them in Seminary. I don't know of any that argue against reason. Perhaps an argument could be made for one or two but I don't see how. Assuming this is true it would hardly render all of the Theses' a rejection of reason.

Some people at the time thought the Catholic church had become too rational, and they wanted a return to "the pure clarity of faith". The position is called "fideism". While I have a protestant background I am an atheist. As to Protestant and Catholic I honestly don't see one or the other superior. However, I find the notion that Protestants abandoned reason to be offensive to many of the great Christian logicians who were not Catholic. The Catholic church cannot prove God, the Virgin Birth, Immaculate Conception, etc. These things must be accepted on faith.

In any event, what exactly this has to do with Luther protesting the selling of salvation is beyond me.

Historically, the roots of strict logic go back at least to Plato.I'm very familiar with the history of the early Greek philosophers. This has absolutely nothing to do with my point. My point was about the many schisms caused by logical inquiry into doctrine and the logical arguments made by Christians.

We can logically explore any idea we like, including the moral ideas in the bible. Logic will not provide the premises, any more than it provided the bible. Premises do not come from logic. Conclusions do. So a person who does not believe the bible is the word of God might say, "suppose human beings were created in the image and likeness of God... what would follow?" The implications regarding human dignity, for example, could be enormous. We can "suspend disbelief" for the sake of entertainment, inter-cultural dialog, or even argument.You are going far afield. We don't need to do any of that. We can potentially agree on any number of propositions. We could discuss the merits of forgiveness or self sacrifice. We could argue, for instance, that a society that values forgiveness is superior to a society that doesn't. If we should agree on this proposition then we could use that as a premise to build other arguments.

There are all kinds of propositions in the bible that we can find agreement on, construct arguments from and then logically test the argument. We don't have to accept the bible as the word of god to test those propositions. I really don't have a clue where you are getting these ideas.

Do you subscribe to "fideism"? This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just really confused.

My theology professors (all protestant) would be amazed to know that logical arguments can't be constructed to establish propositions in the bible. I have a feeling Catholic theologians would agree.

[stillthinkin]

RandFan, I believe the last few postings between us here were the result of my statement "Logic has no content". Can we agree on that statement, or no?

Sorry, I am despairing right now of being a real good Forum participant. With three small children, and a spouse who claims not to be interested in life as an "internet widow", I cant post responses that take me more than a few minutes.

[RandFan]

RandFan, I believe the last few postings between us here were the result of my statement "Logic has no content". Can we agree on that statement, or no?

Sorry, I am despairing right now of being a real good Forum participant. With three small children, and a spouse who claims not to be interested in life as an "internet widow", I cant post responses that take me more than a few minutes. I understand the constraints of time. I have to leave the forum for months at a time when I get behind in my work (I'm self employed).

I don't have a problem with the statement "logic has no content" however I'm not certain how important this point is to main point of the discussion.

That being said, please, don't despair as to our conversation. It's not that big of a deal. Family is far more important. I appreciate your input thus far. if you can respond to any part of the post that will be fine and if you can't that will be fine also. If you want to respond to something else or start a thread please do so. Please feel free to interact here as you can and respond when and where you feel your time is best served. My ego isn't that big that I need a response. I promise.

I look forward to any of your input in the future.

Thanks again,

RandFan :)

[RandFan]

That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.No. One can love one's neighbor and still trespass against his neighbor.

Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.How is this loving your neighbor AS MUCH as yourself? Shouldn't your neighbor get everything that you get? If your neighbor is eating hamburger and you are eating steak shouldn't you share your steak?

By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc. That's the golden rule. Because I love myself I do things for myself that I don't do for my neighbor. Do you?

Why wouldn't they be? Which needs come first, your's your neighbor's? I'm guessing your's, right?

You do things for yourself every single day because you care about yourself. Do you do the same types or number of things for your neighbor?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That Christ condensed the ten Mosaic Commandments into two simple premises.

No. One can love one's neighbor and still trespass against his neighbor.

Correct. One can.

And that is a sin.

Quote:
Treat him with respect. Help when help was needed. Check on his welfare. Etc.

How is this loving your neighbor AS MUCH as yourself? Shouldn't your neighbor get everything that you get? If your neighbor is eating hamburger and you are eating steak shouldn't you share your steak?

Matthew 19:17-21 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm)

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" The young man said to him, "All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Quote:
By treating him with respect, helping when help is needed, checking on his welfare, voting consciously, etc.

That's the golden rule. Because I love myself I do things for myself that I don't do for my neighbor. Do you?

Yup. And vice versa, too.

Quote:
Why wouldn't they be?

Which needs come first, your's your neighbor's? I'm guessing your's, right?

Close. The needs of my wife and children come first. That's part of God's will being up front. I believe that's why he put me and keeps me here.

You do things for yourself every single day because you care about yourself. Do you do the same types or number of things for your neighbor?

I don't do for strangers as much as myself. Few do. Even someone like Mother Teresa can "earn" your distain.

But I can be considered a downright "neighborly" kind of guy, and my community obviously feels that way.

[stillthinkin]

I understand the constraints of time. I have to leave the forum for months at a time when I get behind in my work (I'm self employed).

I don't have a problem with the statement "logic has no content" however I'm not certain how important this point is to main point of the discussion.

That being said, please, don't despair as to our conversation. It's not that big of a deal. Family is far more important. I appreciate your input thus far. if you can respond to any part of the post that will be fine and if you can't that will be fine also. If you want to respond to something else or start a thread please do so. Please feel free to interact here as you can and respond when and where you feel your time is best served. My ego isn't that big that I need a response. I promise.

I look forward to any of your input in the future.

Thanks again,

RandFan :)
Thank you for your encouragement. As you know already, I am continuing to post. I would be glad to answer all your earlier questions. I am experimenting with different ways of actually getting online occasionally... briefly... the problem I am having is that I get started on a long post, and then get called away, then come back, etc. etc. and never get anything posted! I like to be thorough, but I have to be quick...

Yes I am Catholic. I am also skeptical, and I appreciate James Randi's work exposing frauds like Uri Geller and Peter Popoff. As you already know, I found nothing wrong with Michael Shermer's statements in the Penn video. Catholics take a "faith and reason" approach, excluding neither, which incidentally was the very subject of Benedict's speech to university faculty in Germany recently that brought him so much criticism. The speech is worth reading. If you do read it, you will find that the fact that I am a Catholic does not conflict with my claim also to be skeptical: "even in the face of... radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason". The speech is easy to find on Google.

Time to submit, I can say more about logic and Luther and reason in the next burst!

[RandFan]

Correct. One can.

And that is a sin.Yes, but telling us to love our neighbor doesn't tell us that. In otherwords two propositions are not enough.

Matthew 19:17-21 (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm) I don't understand your point?

Yup. And vice versa, too.Cool, so let's not pretend we love our neighbors as ourselves.

Close. The needs of my wife and children come first. That's part of God's will being up front. I believe that's why he put me and keeps me here. Again, cool. I have no argument with your priorities at all. I think that's wonderful. I just think we shouldn't pretend to love someone as much as ourselves when we don't.

I don't do for strangers as much as myself. Few do. Even someone like Mother Teresa can "earn" your distain. I'm not sure she did much but proselytize. Since I'm an atheist I don't see the value in that.

Matthew 25

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. I don't see MT in these (the above) scriptures

Matthew 7

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?This is where I see MT.

But I can be considered a downright "neighborly" kind of guy, and my community obviously feels that way. Good, my hats off to you. But being "neighborly" isn't loving someone else as yourself.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct. One can.

And that is a sin.

Yes, but telling us to love our neighbor doesn't tell us that. In otherwords two propositions are not enough.

It should be obvious.

Quote:
Matthew 19:17-21

I don't understand your point?

"If you wish to be perfect", when you see someone with a small burger and you have a nice New York cut, you go trade.

Quote:
Yup. And vice versa, too.

Cool, so let's not pretend we love our neighbors as ourselves.

But I try. That's the goal.

I'm not "perfect", although I buy a lot of folks lunch. Even steak.

Quote:
Close. The needs of my wife and children come first. That's part of God's will being up front. I believe that's why he put me and keeps me here.

Again, cool. I have no argument with your priorities at all. I think that's wonderful. I just think we shouldn't pretend to love someone as much as ourselves when we don't.

Ever consider the possibility that the range or degree with which we are successful in loving our neighbor as much as ourselves corresponds to the degree of "perfect" we are? Mother Teresa is "gooder" than the Huntster, and the Huntster is "gooder" than Charlie Manson?

And that we might be judged by that?

Quote:
I don't do for strangers as much as myself. Few do. Even someone like Mother Teresa can "earn" your distain.

I'm not sure she did much but proselytize. Since I'm an atheist I don't see the value in that.

Well then. That's your opinion.

Quote:
But I can be considered a downright "neighborly" kind of guy, and my community obviously feels that way.

Good, my hats off to you. But being "neighborly" isn't loving someone else as yourself.

It's all the extremes with you, isn't it?

Is it all the time, or just with religion?

[RandFan]

It should be obvious.Which bring us back to our original point. I don't need to be told to love my neighbor to know what is moral and what isn't. Again, that which is obvious is that which we already know. You make my argument.

"If you wish to be perfect", when you see someone with a small burger and you have a nice New York cut, you go trade. I don't understand, are you saying that you can't love your neighbor as yourself because you are not perfect?

But I try. That's the goal.I believe that you are an honest and decent person who cares for others and I would venture a guess you would even give of your time and money to help those less fortunate than yourself because you sincerely care. I don't think it is possible for the vast majority of us to love our neighbor as ourselves. I don't even think it is a good idea. I don't even know how someone would go about doing that.

I'm not "perfect", although I buy a lot of folks lunch. Even steak. I honestly don't doubt that.

Ever consider the possibility that the range or degree with which we are successful in loving our neighbor as much as ourselves corresponds to the degree of "perfect" we are? Mother Teresa is "gooder" than the Huntster, and the Huntster is "gooder" than Charlie Manson? I honestly don't know you and I can't look into the heart of MT. Based on what I do know I would put you above MT.

Well then. That's your opinion.Yep.

It's all the extremes with you, isn't it?No, not at all. I just realize the unrealistic nature of such a command.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It should be obvious.

Which bring us back to our original point. I don't need to be told to love my neighbor to know what is moral and what isn't. Again, that which is obvious is that which we already know. You make my argument.

The problem is that I'm not sure if you can grasp the obvious.

Quote:
"If you wish to be perfect", when you see someone with a small burger and you have a nice New York cut, you go trade.

I don't understand, are you saying that you can't love your neighbor as yourself because you are not perfect?

Are you avoiding the point:

I can love my neighbor as myself. I can love him even more than myself by regularly giving up steak for hamburger. I can go further.

I can give up my very life for another. Not in a specific circumstance, either. I can do it on a macro basis.

That's what Christ is recognized as doing.

I can love my neighbor as myself as best I can, and I can pray for the grace to do even better.

Quote:
But I try. That's the goal.

I believe that you are an honest and decent person who cares for others and I would venture a guess you would even give of your time and money to help those less fortunate than yourself because you sincerely care. I don't think it is possible for the vast majority of us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Again, I don't think you're getting it.

I don't even think it is a good idea. I don't even know how someone would go about doing that.

It may not be a good "idea", but it is the ultimate in spiritual life.

I know how to do it. I've seen it done. To the utmost extreme.

Quote:
Ever consider the possibility that the range or degree with which we are successful in loving our neighbor as much as ourselves corresponds to the degree of "perfect" we are? Mother Teresa is "gooder" than the Huntster, and the Huntster is "gooder" than Charlie Manson?

I honestly don't know you and I can't look into the heart of MT. Based on what I do know I would put you above MT.

Clearly, you just don't get it.

Quote:
It's all the extremes with you, isn't it?

No, not at all. I just realize the unrealistic nature of such a command.

It's not "unrealistic", it's not impossible, and there are degrees of success.

I'm sure there's a grade for "cooperation", too.

[RandFan]

The problem is that I'm not sure if you can grasp the obvious. This is just rhetoric. It doesn't advance your argument nor does it rebut mine.

It's not "unrealistic", it's not impossible, and there are degrees of success.I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was simply "unrealistic". People need to prioritize. We can't solve the needs of the world. We have our own needs, wants and desires. To work hard to make a better life for our families is a good thing. Going to the movies or the park is a good thing. But that is not possible if we love our neighbors as ourselves. We could never have anything better because we would never have more than enough to see that all of our neighbors had the same as we had. We have our families who have their needs. A person who truly loved his neighbor as himself could never have a luxury. No movies, no trips to the mall, no vacations, nothing but existence and giving all of your excess to those who have less than you. Anything else is NOT loving your neighbor as yourself. You say it's not impossible. I agree. How many people do you know that forgo ALL luxuries? And trading luxuries to help the poor for fame and fortune hardly count either.

Matthew 6:2

Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.MT was famous, I suspect that she had her reward.

I'm sure there's a grade for "cooperation", too.I'm all for that. But let's not pretend we love our neighbor as ourselves when we go to the mall for clothes and many people in the world wear rags. Let's not pretend that we love our neighbor when we go to a fancy restaurant and many people in the world will go to bed to night hungry (in America) and many throughout the world will starve to death.

Charity, compassion, good will, these are good things and I'm convinced you are possessed of them as are most Christians and indeed most people. But very, very few forgo ALL luxuries to see to it that as many neighbors as possible have the same.

You show me someone who does that and I'll show you a person who loves his neighbor as himself. Otherwise, it's just being a good person.

[Huntster]

...... How many people do you know that forgo ALL luxuries?...

Again, your focus on the extreme does not overrule or diminish the commandment.

Quote:
I'm sure there's a grade for "cooperation", too.

I'm all for that. But let's not pretend we love our neighbor as ourselves when we go to the mall for clothes and many people in the world wear rags. Let's not pretend that we love our neighbor when we go to a fancy restaurant and many people in the world will go to bed to night hungry (in America) and many throughout the world will starve to death.


So, who's doing that pretending?

Charity, compassion, good will, these are good things and I'm convinced you are possessed of them as are most Christians and indeed most people. But very, very few forgo ALL luxuries to see to it that as many neighbors as possible have the same.

That is true. So what?

You show me someone who does that and I'll show you a person who loves his neighbor as himself. Otherwise, it's just being a good person.

If your point is to demonstrate that few are perfect, you again miss reality:

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.

Translation: Nobody is perfect.

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Translation: If you wish to be perfect...............

Good luck.

[RandFan]

Again, your focus on the extreme does not overrule or diminish the commandment.The commandment IS extreme. That's the problem.

So, who's doing that pretending?Anyone who accepts that loving your neighbor as yourself is either desirable or possible for the vast majority of humans. It's a pipe dream.

That is true. So what?So, let's pick a better maxim. I like the golden rule. Treat others how you would like to be treated. I want my neighbor to enjoy the fruits of his labor and not feel guilty because I have less than him. I want him to extend a hand when I need it. That's all.

If your point is to demonstrate that few are perfect, you again miss reality:

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.

Translation: Nobody is perfect. On the contrary, that is my point! So let's stop pretending that we do or even can love our neighbor as ourselves. It's as silly as saying flap your arms and fly like a bird. We can all pretend that someday we will flap our arms and fly like a bird but it's not really feasible. And the notion that we should love our neighbor as ourselves is not healthy. Parents need to focus on their families first and neighbors second.

Translation: If you wish to be perfect............... This directly contradicts my point. In fact it makes my point! I know we can't be perfect. I accept that we can't. So since we can't be perfect let's stop trying to pretend that we can fulfill a commandment that requires perfection. Let's live in reality and accept reality.

Just love your neighbor and treat your neighbor the way you would like your neighbor to love and treat you. That's a pretty good philosophy. It's possible and would make a pretty damn good society with out guilt for enjoying our the fruits of our labor.

I don't want my neighbor to feel guilty because he can go to the movies and I can't. I want my neighbor to offer to help when I need a hand. To be kind and thoughtful to me. I just want my neighbor to live the golden rule.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Again, your focus on the extreme does not overrule or diminish the commandment.

The commandment IS extreme. That's the problem.

It's a problem if you take it to the extreme. And it's only a problem for you, and only here/now.

According to Christ, after a mortal life of taking it to the extreme (what?; some 75 years?) you graduate to a higher spiritual life.

Quote:
So, who's doing that pretending?

Anyone who accepts that loving your neighbor as yourself is either desirable or possible for the vast majority of humans. It's a pipe dream.

It's a pipe dream if you expect perfection of yourself. It's a goal if you have a realistic outlook.

Quote:
That is true. So what?

So, let's pick a better maxim. I like the golden rule. Treat others how you would like to be treated

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Treat others how you would like to be treated.

Please, what is the difference?

I want my neighbor to enjoy the fruits of his labor and not feel guilty because I have less than him. I want him to extend a hand when I need it. That's all.

How about you extending your hand when he/she needs it?

[QUOTE]Quote:
If your point is to demonstrate that few are perfect, you again miss reality:

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.

Translation: Nobody is perfect.

On the contrary, that is my point! So let's stop pretending that we do or even can love our neighbor as ourselves. It's as silly as saying flap your arms and fly like a bird. We can all pretend that someday we will flap our arms and fly like a bird but it's not really feasible. And the notion that we should love our neighbor as ourselves is not healthy. Parents need to focus on their families first and neighbors second.

Again, love your neighbor as yourself; Treat others how you would like to be treated.

Please, what is the difference?

Quote:
Translation: If you wish to be perfect...............

This directly contradicts my point. In fact it makes my point!

It both contradicts and makes your point.

Yeah.

Please read that again. Doi it a few times. Then, try to understand why I've been having a difficult time discussing things with you.

I know we can't be perfect. I accept that we can't. So since we can't be perfect let's stop trying to pretend that we can fulfill a commandment that requires perfection. Let's live in reality and accept reality.

Look, if treat others how you would like to be treated works for you, it works for me.

[RandFan]

It's a problem if you take it to the extreme. And it's only a problem for you, and only here/now.No, I'm explaining to you why it is A.) Not realistic and B.) Not a good idea.

It's a pipe dream if you expect perfection of yourself. It's a goal if you have a realistic outlook. It's not realistic at all. And it is a bad idea for the reasons I've stated. People should feel good about their accomplishments and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Loving your neighbor as yourself doesn't allow for that.

Please, what is the difference? A clear one. One does not allow any luxuries or self indulgence. The other does.

Please read that again. Doi it a few times. Then, try to understand why I've been having a difficult time discussing things with you. It contradicts my point because I'm not telling anyone to be perfect. It makes my point because we can't be perfect. Read that a few times.

Look, if treat others how you would like to be treated works for you, it works for me.I think it would work for most. It's possible and doesn't create the moral ambiguities and moral dilemmas that telling people to love thy neighbor as thyself does. That's a silly and stupid philosophy that is A.) Not realistic and B.) Not a good idea.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's a problem if you take it to the extreme. And it's only a problem for you, and only here/now.

No, I'm explaining to you why it is A.) Not realistic and B.) Not a good idea.

Amazing.

Quote:
It's a pipe dream if you expect perfection of yourself. It's a goal if you have a realistic outlook.

It's not realistic at all. And it is a bad idea for the reasons I've stated. People should feel good about their accomplishments and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Loving your neighbor as yourself doesn't allow for that.

Amazing.

Quote:
Please, what is the difference?

A clear one. One does not allow any luxuries or self indulgence. The other does.

Amazing.

Quote:
Please read that again. Doi it a few times. Then, try to understand why I've been having a difficult time discussing things with you.

It contradicts my point because I'm not telling anyone to be perfect. It makes my point because we can't be perfect. Read that a few times.

No, thanks. Just once is dizzying enough.

Quote:
Look, if treat others how you would like to be treated works for you, it works for me.

I think it would work for most. It's possible and doesn't create the moral ambiguities and moral dilemmas that telling people to love thy neighbor as thyself does. That's a silly and stupid philosophy that is A.) Not realistic and B.) Not a good idea.

How profound.

Maybe you ought to start a religion. You're a real sage.

[RandFan]

Amazing. And true.

Amazing.And true.

Amazing.And true.

No, thanks. Just once is dizzying enough. Probably a comprehension issue on your part. A premise can satisfy contradictory propositions for different reasons.

How profound. I wish I could take credit for it.

Maybe you ought to start a religion.That would be counter to reason.

[Huntster]

Quote:
No, thanks. Just once is dizzying enough.

Probably a comprehension issue on your part.

Must be. I have a difficult time comprehending your..........messages.

A premise can satisfy contradictory propositions for different reasons.

In some minds, yes.

Quote:
Maybe you ought to start a religion.

That would be counter to reason.

That shouldn't be a problem for you.

[RandFan]

Must be. I have a difficult time comprehending your..........messages. Understood. Logic and reason can fail some.

In some minds, yes.It is demonstrable to those who comprehend logic and reason.

That shouldn't be a problem for you. Actually it would. If it wouldn't I wouldn't have so stated. You are now just engaging in rhetoric and contradiction.

At the end of the day I have clearly demonstrated why "loving your neighbor as yourself" is A.) Not realistic, B.) Not a good idea to even try and C.) Why the golden rule (while not perfect) is a far more coherent philosophy.

You have not advanced a single argument to rebut my points. So you are left with sophistry. Your ego will not allow an admission of the facts or for you to simply bow out of the discussion so you persist in the only thing you can to mollify your ego, contradiction and rhetoric.

[qayak]

At the end of the day I have clearly demonstrated why "loving your neighbor as yourself" is A.) Not realistic, B.) Not a good idea to even try and C.) Why the golden rule (while not perfect) is a far more coherent philosophy.

The Tit-for-Tat rule is much more reliable than the Golden Rule. The problem with the Golden Rule is that there is no penalty for those who violate it. In fact, once violated the Golden Rule allows for continued abuse.

The Tit-for-Tat Rule has a mechanism for clear and swift punishment for violators.

[RandFan]

The Tit-for-Tat rule is much more reliable than the Golden Rule. The problem with the Golden Rule is that there is no penalty for those who violate it. In fact, once violated the Golden Rule allows for continued abuse.

The Tit-for-Tat Rule has a mechanism for clear and swift punishment for violators. That's all well and good but it seems to me that I always get more tat than... well, in any event, I see nothing mutually exclusive of the two. When I needed a car to keep my job JREF folks helped me get one and I was able to continue to work at my Tit-for-Tat job, feed my family and keep a roof over my head. They (the folks at JREF) treated me in a time of need the way I wanted to be treated in a time of need. I will do likewise for others.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Must be. I have a difficult time comprehending your..........messages.

Understood. Logic and reason can fail some.

Especially your version of "logic" and "reason."

Quote:
In some minds, yes.

It is demonstrable to those who comprehend logic and reason.

Especially your version of "logic" and "reason."

At the end of the day I have clearly demonstrated why "loving your neighbor as yourself" is A.) Not realistic, B.) Not a good idea to even try and C.) Why the golden rule (while not perfect) is a far more coherent philosophy.

You have not advanced a single argument to rebut my points.

You're playing semantic games. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is synonomous with "Treat others as you wish to be treated."

The reason for the game is that you insist on degrading the Bible.

You call it "logic" and "reason." I call it stupid.

[RandFan]

Especially your version of "logic" and "reason."There is no "version".

You're playing semantic games. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is synonomous with "Treat others as you wish to be treated."No it is not. One is not conducive to the raising of a family and enjoying the fruits of your labor. The other is. It's a very important distinction.

...you insist on degrading the Bible.No, I insist on basing my philosophy on logic and reason and not the other way around.

You call it "logic" and "reason." I call it stupid.Without any basis you do so.

And you still have not rebutted my argument that loving thy neighbor as yourself is A.) Not feasible, B.) Not a good idea and C.) The golden rule is a better philosophy that does not lead to ambiguity or moral dilemma.

[qayak]

That's all well and good but it seems to me that I always get more tat than... well, in any event, I see nothing mutually exclusive of the two. When I needed a car to keep my job JREF folks helped me get one and I was able to continue to work at my Tit-for-Tat job, feed my family and keep a roof over my head. They (the folks at JREF) treated me in a time of need the way I wanted to be treated in a time of need. I will do likewise for others.

Of course! Everything is always peachy when everyone follows the rule but what happens when someone doesn't?

Say there was one JREF character who saw your problem, made it impossible for you to buy a new car and then moved in to take over the job you could no longer fulfill?

That is how we decide if the Golden Rule works. The Tit-for-Tat rule would deal with this guy very well.

[Huntster]

Quote:
You're playing semantic games. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is synonomous with "Treat others as you wish to be treated."

No it is not. One is not conducive to the raising of a family and enjoying the fruits of your labor. The other is. It's a very important distinction.

Bullspit.

And you still have not rebutted my argument that loving thy neighbor as yourself is A.) Not feasible, B.) Not a good idea and C.) The golden rule is a better philosophy that does not lead to ambiguity or moral dilemma.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "treat others as you wish to be treated" are synonomous. You have no argument, except in your own head.

[RandFan]

Bullspit.No, it's demonstrable.

1.) If I love my neighbor as myself I cannot enjoy luxuries while my neighbor has less than myself. It is logically not possible.

2.) If I live the golden rule then I can live happily with my neighbor having less than myself so long as I give my neighbor a hand when he or she is in need because that is what I would want.

Loving thy neighbor as thyself is NOT flexible. The golden rule is.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "treat others as you wish to be treated" are synonomous. You have no argument, except in your own head.They clearly and demonstrably are not synonymous. One allows for inequities between individuals the other doesn't.

If you truly and honestly loved your neighbor as yourself you would not consume any more of your resources than is absolutely necessary for survival so long as there existed neighbors who had less.

The golden rule has no such requirement. It is a superior philosophy in that it doesn't breed guilt or resentment by a person who seeks to work hard for that person and that persons family. It only requires that the person treat others as the person would like to be treated.

You still are simply engaging in rhetoric and contradiction.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Bullspit.

No, it's demonstrable.

1.) If I love my neighbor as myself I cannot enjoy luxuries while my neighbor has less than myself. It is logically not possible.

If you "treat others as you wish to be treated" you cannot enjoy luxuries while your neighbor has less than yourself.

2.) If I live the golden rule then I can live happily with my neighbor having less than myself so long as I give my neighbor a hand when he or she is in need because that is what I would want.

Loving thy neighbor as thyself is NOT flexible. The golden rule is.

What a bunch of crap. Loving thy neighbor as thyself is every bit as flexible as treating others as you wish to be treated is.

Do the games never end with you?

Quote:
"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "treat others as you wish to be treated" are synonomous. You have no argument, except in your own head.

They clearly and demonstrably are not synonymous. One allows for inequities between individuals the other doesn't.

If you truly and honestly loved your neighbor as yourself you would not consume any more of your resources than is absolutely necessary for survival so long as there existed neighbors who had less.

The golden rule has no such requirement. It is a superior philosophy in that it doesn't breed guilt or resentment by a person who seeks to work hard for that person and that persons family. It only requires that the person treat others as the person would like to be treated.

You still are simply engaging in rhetoric and contradiction.

Unbelievable.

You personify why I left Southern California so long ago. The place is truly out of this world; disconnected; headed in a "different" direction. Up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right, and any and every bizarre thing can be explained with a straight face, because you actually believe that line of BS.

[RandFan]

If you "treat others as you wish to be treated" you cannot enjoy luxuries while your neighbor has less than yourself.Of course I can. That is exactly how I want to be treated. I was recently in very serious financial hardship. I did not want others to pity me or to feel guilty for enjoying the fruits of their labor. I only wanted help to get back on my feet. My neighbors (JREF members) did just that. Since then I have not been able to afford fancy restaurants or many of life's luxuries. They have. I have no resentment at all to them for that. I'm happy to be able to work and feed my family and I am on the road back to financial stability. Thanks to the Golden Rule.

What a bunch of crap. Loving thy neighbor as thyself is every bit as flexible as treating others as you wish to be treated is. Not at all. If you loved your neighbor as yourself you would not consume any more resources than necessary for you to survive. How could you?

You personify why I left Southern California so long ago. The place is truly out of this world; disconnected; headed in a "different" direction. Up is down, right is wrong, wrong is right, and any and every bizarre thing can be explained with a straight face, because you actually believe that line of BS. Again, you posit no argument. This is all rhetorical and does not advance an argument. Does not establish a definite proposition.

You continue to engage in contradiction and rhetoric. My guess is that you can't stop. Ego, ain't it a bitch?

[Belz...]

God will outlive us, whether or not he actually exists. I'm sorry, but that is a fact.

A very astute comment. I'm impressed.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I have season 1 and 2 of P&T’s BS. This episode is on disk 3 of season 2, 3rd episode on the disk if I recall correctly. :)

Anyone know when season 3 is being released on DVD, or has it already?

Here's a strange thing, FWIW, of all the episodes of P&T BS that I have gotten on Netflix there has only been one episode that was completely screwed up - wouldn't play, skipped and broke up.

P&T and the bible episode.

[Clu]

HA I love these guy... so f-ckin great

[Clu]

Elvis didn' do no drugs...