Golden Rule

[KorbenDallas]

4 minutes ago, moralist said:

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

 Then later (again, from several in the "fellowship"), "god is in you."  Wait, young me thought, "in me?"  I asked for clarification.  They said, "yes, inside you."  Young me thought, "I didn't sign up for this."

You speak as if god exists. 

 

Your hypothetical has an arbitrary apodictic modality to it, which is (not) logic, as the antecedent doesn't exist.  I'll reject it, 

This is a non sequitur. What you're saying now has absolutely nothing to do with your previous comment about God's sacrifice inducing guilt. That's the screwy idea I commented on.

No, no.  I said "or would-be religionist", so you read me wrong, I was not implying it introduces guilt in all cases.  Be educated here, the story of god's sacrifice introduced guilt on many people while in church.  I was not one of those cases, however.

 

11 minutes ago, moralist said:

Yes.

I know God exists by my own direct personal experience in real time.

I never said this.

[moralist]

11 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

No, no.  I said "or would-be religionist", so you read me wrong, I was not implying it introduces guilt in all cases.  Be educated here, the story of god's sacrifice introduced guilt on many people while in church.  I was not one of those cases, however.

I didn't say you were. I only said that it was a screwy idea and that no Christians I know felt that way. Your subsequent remarks had absolutely nothing to do with your original comment about inducing guilt by referencing God's sacrifice for man. That's just plain stupid.

And, yes... I was the one who said I know God exists by my own personal experience in real time... and not you. You must have answered before I finally got all of the quotes straightened out in my post. It's taking me a while to catch onto the new post formatting.

 

Greg

[KorbenDallas]

45 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I don't understand this.

I didn't identify anything philosophical. Nor did I promote any particular view. I merely related what I read.

I can give quotes if that will help. The relevant passages are pretty clear...

btw - You don't have to answer this if you don't want. I'm merely asking out of curiosity. Which denomination did the church you attended belong to?

Michael

Southern baptist.

No, I don't need passages quoted to me.

Your context for Original Sin that I quoted has already received the theological treatment and has corresponding implications for practicing the religion, and I was pointing that out.  I thought I'd help by offering other theological interpretations of Original Sin that you might, or might not, not be aware of.

Christianity is nauseating, that's what all the barfing was about.

[KorbenDallas]

59 minutes ago, moralist said:

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

No, no.  I said "or would-be religionist", so you read me wrong, I was not implying it introduces guilt in all cases.  Be educated here, the story of god's sacrifice introduced guilt on many people while in church.  I was not one of those cases, however.

I didn't say you were. I only said that it was a screwy idea and that no Christians I know felt that way. Your subsequent remarks had absolutely nothing to do with your original comment about inducing guilt by referencing God's sacrifice for man. That's just plain stupid.

I re-read everything.  I thought when you quoted the god's sacrifice and guilt sentence you were bringing the rest of the context along with it, so I replied to a context and not the sentence itself.  Not admitting to your "That's just plain stupid" comment.

God's sacrifice and guilt is not a "screwy idea"--also for clarity this isn't my idea, it occurs in churches

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

..not implying it introduces guilt in all cases.  Be educated here, the story of god's sacrifice introduced guilt on many people while in church.  I was not one of those cases, however.

There isn't an argument here, these are facts.

[BaalChatzaf]

On 2/12/2016 at 10:11 PM, moralist said:

Sin is an archery term. It simply means missing the target. And "going against God's will" just means taking irrational actions which are not harmonious with the unfolding flow of objective reality and which will naturally produce inharmonious consequences. Learning how to hit the moral mark is solely for our own benefit... certainly not God's.

And how can anyone know the difference for themselves completely independent of anyone else's subjective opinions? Simply observe the results your own actions spin into motion, as well as observe the kind of person you become as a result of your own actions. This is not a complicated process. All it requires is to observe yourself as if you were another person observing you. 

 

Greg

In rabbinic Judaism, there are three grades of sin.  the lowest, is as Moralist said,  missing the mark.  It is a result of human error.  It is essentially unintentional.  The second grade and more serious is sin that derives from lust or  sensual desire  or anger.  It is the sin that flows from temptation or anger and indicates a lack of self control.  In rabbinic Judaism,  self control is an essential.  The highest degree of sin is  outright wickedness.  The intentional desire  to do evil,  for the sake of doing evil.  This is a very rare form of sin.  It is as rare (alas!)  as unalloyed goodness (saints are very rare).

The majority of the human race sins through thoughtlessness,  laziness,  distraction or just being buffeted by so many things that focus is lost.  Most of us when we sin,  sin in this mode. The cure is to stop forming bad habits and to pay attention to what we are doing.  Being good is hard work, so focus and forming good habits is essential.  In this regard  rabbinic Judaism was on the same track as Aristotle was in the Nichomachean Ethics.

[moralist]

8 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

God's sacrifice and guilt is not a "screwy idea"--also for clarity this isn't my idea, it occurs in churches

God's sacrifice for man isn't a screwy idea... your statement that it induces guilt is a screwy idea.

I've never seen it in Christianity.

 

Greg

[moralist]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In rabbinic Judaism, there are three grades of sin.  the lowest, is as Moralist said,  missing the mark.  It is a result of human error.  It is essentially unintentional.  The second grade and more serious is sin that derives from lust or  sensual desire  or anger.  It is the sin that flows from temptation or anger and indicates a lack of self control.  In rabbinic Judaism,  self control is an essential.  The highest degree of sin is  outright wickedness.  The intentional desire  to do evil,  for the sake of doing evil.  This is a very rare form of sin.  It is as rare (alas!)  as unalloyed goodness (saints are very rare).

The majority of the human race sins through thoughtlessness,  laziness,  distraction or just being buffeted by so many things that focus is lost.  Most of us when we sin,  sin in this mode. The cure is to stop forming bad habits and to pay attention to what we are doing.  Being good is hard work, so focus and forming good habits is essential.  In this regard  rabbinic Judaism was on the same track as Aristotle was in the Nichomachean Ethics.

This is testament to the Divine practical wisdom of the moral values in Judiaism...

...that even a totally secular atheist would invoke them.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

4 minutes ago, moralist said:

This is testament to the Divine practical wisdom of the moral values in Judiaism...

...that even a totally secular atheist would invoke them.

 

Greg

I am not exactly an atheist.  I think if the Real God exists  then It is -nothing- like the preachers, priests, prophets,  rabbis and immams  say It is. I doubt whether the Real God pays any attention to us. How much attention do we pay to the ants and bugs  except when they bother us.  Humans are hominid primate version 3.0,  an evolutionary happenstance.  If the climate had been different or that  asteroid did not hit the Earth 65 million years ago we would not even be here.

Morality is a human invention.  It is a system of values and protocols that has arisen out of our social and eusocial nature.  If Felines were the dominant form of mammalian life on this planet,  they would not have a moral or ethical nature anything like us  primates   version 3.0.

It so happens that the Jews, through chance and circumstance hit the ethical jackpot.   If my ancestors  (who were was bad-ass as Daesh, al Qeda and Boko Haram)  had not been pushed out the the land they took from the Cana'anites,  Israelite ethics would be very little like Jewish ethics is now.

 

Ba'al Chatzaaf.

 

 

[Jonathan]

Apey try scrub brain with Pine Sol, but mix up and scrub brain with pine tar. Now brain extra smudge!

 

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am not exactly an atheist.  I think if the Real God exists  then It is -nothing- like the preachers, priests, prophets,  rabbis and immams  say It is. I doubt whether the Real God pays any attention to us.

We're on the same page here, Bob. The only slight difference is what you think is true, I know is true. From my experience, God created and set into motion the physical laws that govern the universe as well as the moral laws that govern the consequences of human behavior. They are absolute, utterly impersonal, and there are no exceptions.

Moral laws were created for my good not God's. It's in my own best selfish interests to abide by them because they are the only pathway to a happy healthy productive prosperous meaningful life.

It's no mystery to me why the Jews are God's chosen people. Moral law entered this world through them in Sinai.... and all civilized free nations were built upon the foundation of that moral law.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

We're on the same page here, Bob. The only slight difference is what you think is true, I know is true. From my experience, God created and set into motion the physical laws that govern the universe as well as the moral laws that govern the consequences of human behavior. They are absolute, utterly impersonal, and there are no exceptions.

Moral laws were created for my good not God's. It's in my own best selfish interests to abide by them because they are the only pathway to a happy healthy productive prosperous meaningful life.

It's no mystery to me why the Jews are God's chosen people. Moral law entered this world through them in Sinai.... and all civilized free nations were built upon the foundation of that moral law.

 

Greg

There are two principles of which I have no doubt.  1.  The law of non-contradiction.  without it we could not think straight.   2.  the second law of thermodynamics  (2LOT).  There is no proof of it, but since it was enunciated by Clausius and  Thompson (Lord Kelvin)  it has never,  ever  been seen  to fail.  No one has ever seen an egg unscramble itself  or  a the ashes of a burnt log ever turn into  a solid stick fit for burning in the fire fireplace.   I literally would bet my life that 2LOT is true. In fact virtually all of us  depend on 2LOT.  Without 2LOT there would be no life.  Proteins would not construct themselves  nor  would we be able to metabolize to gain internal energy.  In a way, the fact we exist as live beings is testimony to 2LOT. 

I guess my true religion is Thermodynamics....

As it says in the Psalm   The Heavens  proclaim Thy handiwork, Lord   So does everything else

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

We're on the same page here, Bob. The only slight difference is what you think is true, I know is true. From my experience, God created and set into motion the physical laws that govern the universe as well as the moral laws that govern the consequences of human behavior. They are absolute, utterly impersonal, and there are no exceptions.

Moral laws were created for my good not God's. It's in my own best selfish interests to abide by them because they are the only pathway to a happy healthy productive prosperous meaningful life.

It's no mystery to me why the Jews are God's chosen people. Moral law entered this world through them in Sinai.... and all civilized free nations were built upon the foundation of that moral law.

Greg

Tell us about your "experience."

How did you validate it?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Southern baptist.

Korben,

Ha!

I was a Southern Baptist in my youth. I have many stories, but the funniest is that I converted my mother, then not too long after that became an atheist in the Randian mold and she threw a cup of hot coffee at me, cup, saucer and all.

 

Now I am on a different journey. I no longer carry the anger in my heart about the religious people I had to deal with growing up and I don't even care about branding myself as an atheist. In fact, I now call myself ignorant about matters of God.

Human-wise, I'm looking at religion through a lens of fascination--not the kind where I will be converted. It's more a fascination with why religion has been with humans since the beginning of history. There are some very strong human needs met by religion. Otherwise, people would have stopped practicing it.

I'm not saying religion is the only way to meet those needs, but I am saying those needs exist. I have found a few (storytelling, group organization, meaning, communication between the higher level of the brain and the lower levels, etc.), but I'm still in look and see mode.

Michael

 

 

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Tell us about your "experience."

How did you validate it?

--Brant

Sure will, Brant...

...but first can you tell me who "we" is? Are you asking as an appointed spokesperson for a group, or are you asking for yourself as an individual?

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

56 minutes ago, moralist said:

Sure will, Brant...

...but first can you tell me who "we" is? Are you asking as an appointed spokesperson for a group, or are you asking for yourself as an individual?

Greg

This is not PM.

--Brant

[moralist]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is not PM.

--Brant

I'm happy to respond to a direct and honest response from you as to what I had asked, Brant.

 

Greg 

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, moralist said:

I'm happy to respond to a direct and honest response from you as to what I had asked, Brant.

Greg 

Why don't you answer twice--once to each supposition? Or three times, the third being a conglomeration of the first two?

--Brant

honesty begins at home and worthless teeth pulling isn't honest

the truth of a statement has nothing to do with what's in the brain of any recipient, but that pretense is just a setup for an argument ad hominem, making you wrong at the beginning and at the end and I'll not be the meat in that sandwich

[anthony]

23 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am not exactly an atheist.  I think if the Real God exists  then It is -nothing- like the preachers, priests, prophets,  rabbis and immams  say It is. I doubt whether the Real God pays any attention to us. How much attention do we pay to the ants and bugs  except when they bother us.  Humans are hominid primate version 3.0,  an evolutionary happenstance.  If the climate had been different or that  asteroid did not hit the Earth 65 million years ago we would not even be here.

Morality is a human invention.  It is a system of values and protocols that has arisen out of our social and eusocial nature.

 

I

 

Ba'al Chatzaaf.

 

 

I'd make the (safe) bet that there are no two religious individuals ever who have precisely the same interpretation of God. It's subjective, after all, and everyone tailors the God-concept to fit his view of God, existence, and his life and morals. Even an objective philosophy can be debated and is sometimes differently interpreted.

What may be more surprising is to consider that atheists can vary some in their no-god-concept.

Morality is a human invention, yup. But a rational morality easily contains or subsumes how to act in a "social and eusocial" context. First, from self-awareness and observation one knows the nature of other people, implicitly, well before adulthood. Understanding the nature of man, later completes the picture. By what code one acts ~for oneself~ isn't automatic and has to be made explicit, however.

[moralist]

22 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Why don't you answer twice

I asked you a simple direct question, Brant...

...but first can you tell me who "we" is? Are you asking as an appointed spokesperson for a group, or are you asking for yourself as an individual?

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

A fallacy chases itself and having come full circle bites itself on the ass as if that would prove something not tautological.

--Brant

why don't you tell us how my answer would necessarily affect your answer or drop the ad hominem?

the idea that I might be some "[self] appointed spokesperson for a group"--others on OL--is an insult

[moralist]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

I'd make the (safe) bet that there are no two religious individuals around who have precisely the same interpretation of God and their religion. It's subjective, after all, and everyone tailors the God-concept to fit his view of his life and morals. What may be more surprising is to consider that atheists vary some in their no-god-concept.

Morality is a human invention, yup. But a rational morality easily contains or subsumes how to act in a "social and eusocial" context. From self-awareness and observation one knows the nature of other people, implicitly, well before adulthood. By what code one acts ~for oneself~ isn't automatic and has to be made explicit, however.

You are so right, Tony...

There are bigger differences within religions than there are between religions!

And while the standards we each choose to live by are totally subjective, because we are totally subjective beings...

...we each can KNOW for ourselves how close our subjective values measure up to universal objective moral values by the consequences our own actions spin into motion.

 

Greg

[moralist]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

A fallacy chases itself and having come full circle bites itself on the ass as if that would prove something not tautological.

--Brant

why don't you tell us how my answer would necessarily affect your answer or drop the ad hominem?

the idea that I might be some "[self] appointed spokesperson for a group"--others on OL--is an insult

Getting puffed up is just a smokescreen, Brant.

And of course whatever you answer won't alter what I say. I'm asking this simple direct honest question of you to give you the opportunity to offer a simple direct honest answer in return. You want an honest response from me and you will get it when you can be honest enough to offer what you ask.

Again .. are you asking as a representative of a group or for yourself as an individual?

I await your answer.

 

Greg

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

Getting puffed up is just a smokescreen, Brant.

And of course whatever you answer won't alter what I say. I'm asking this simple direct honest question of you to give you the opportunity to offer a simple direct honest answer in return. You want an honest response from me and you will get it when you can be honest enough to offer what you ask.

Again .. are you asking as a representative of a group or for yourself as an individual?

I await your answer.

Greg

I'm curious enough about what you have next in mind to say I'm no representative of any group.

--Brant

some group may have a different opinion--for instance PETA--which would make impossible sense (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or People Who Eat Tasty Animals)

[Jonathan]

Apey use clever trick to avoid answer question! Apey make big noise about words "us" and "we" and say Brant dishonest. Apey make big smokescreen that no one see through! They not notice Aepy not answer question! Apey very smart and tricky. Apey genius!

 

[william.scherk]

21 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Tell us about your "experience."

How did you validate it?

--Brant

Moralist is disingenuous asking what it means when somebody says "Tell us about X" ...  he knows very well what it means. The dodge of 'what does "us" mean' is a craven ploy and not the first time Moralist has evaded interesting or difficult questions.  

Greg,  the utterance 'tell us'  is straightforward English. It means say something, write something, answer the question -- that there is a group of people reading here who are not-Greg -- this 'us' means Brant and the rest of the readers. In other words, the audience at OL for your words. You have been told this before, in plain language, more than once -- unless you have had a stroke the squirming and dodging is a puzzle, an inexplicable tic.

 Is there some government-educated mind-infection that prevents you from giving an honest response? I wonder, because your posturing on the meaning of 'us' approaches troll behaviour.  

Brant is among the most even-handed OLers when it comes to you. He does not attack or call you names or reflect any of your bile and moralism. He is fair. It looks really weird that you cannot man up and simply converse ... is that the impression you meant to leave -- one of dodging, evading, dishonestly pretending?  I hope not.

Claro: Brant is not claiming a Majestic Third Person Plural. He asked you about your experience (of the god-thing in your brain).  It is a simple inquiry. Why you turn all coy and coquettish is .., puzzling. Maybe you ended up with a female brain.

Your credibility as an honest interlocutor is at stake. Man up, or you will look like a pussy.