deanwins Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Emotions are complex sensory combinations that are triggered more or less by evolution/natural selection. They are triggered when our bodies primitive sensory detect certain stimulus that is genetically programmed, eugenically learned, learning in our life, or even triggered by the moment's current conclusions of our reasoning too. So emotions are not baseless, they have an underlying utility in attaining the goal of living... given that natural selection designs for such a goal.As for the fallibility of logic and our senses and memories... I agree that we can make mistakes... but surely we can have higher confidence in our ideas using observation and reason than ANY OTHER METHOD of idea generation, such as the acceptance of arbitrary ideas, hearsay, or old-translated-telephone-game-books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Don't mistake our friends' argument for Christianity as the best argument that can be offered.You've already mistaken my description as an argument, for I'm not defending Christianity. And the reason is that I already understand that you (as well as many of the other folks here) have already chosen your path and will follow it straight to your grave, just as I'm following the path I already chose straight to my grave.The beginnings of a reasonable defense of Christianity would begin with an acknowledgment of certain historical facts relating to the lives of Jesus and Paul and inferences relating to those facts, an acknowledgment of long-standing traditions of Christianity (such as communion, which was clearly an established tradition even before Paul penned his various letters) and what they imply about Christ's teachings, lessons (and additional inferences) that can be drawn from lives of early martyrs who lived and died and were seemingly transformed by what they witnessed at the founding of the Church, and, among other things, a number of theological conclusions about God's love that might be drawn from the writings of the early Church fathers--most of which are contrary to (or inconsistent with) notions of limited salvation, eternal damnation, and elaborate church hierarchies.There is a difference between the virtual intellectual study of Christianity......and the personal experience of actually living it.GregI think you are actually right with your latter point. There is a chicken and egg issue, however. Unless one has the good fortunate of a Road to Damascus experience, there would seem to need to be a factual/reasonable basis to pay attention to Christianity rather than, say, 100 other religions that could grab one's attention, and possible allegiance. What I have described are the beginnings of how one might get to the level of person experience you are referencing. I don't claim to be an expert in this area.I have heard a fair number of Christians make statements along the lines of "you either get or it you don't" when referencing the basis of their faith. This actually sells the "argument" for Christianity quite short, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I think you are actually right with your latter point. There is a chicken and egg issue, however. Unless one has the good fortunate of a Road to Damascus experience, That kind of extreme life altering/life threatening experience can either be perceived as Divine beneficence, or dreadful punishment straight from hell. It all depends upon how you choose to view it. there would seem to need to be a factual/reasonable basis to pay attention to Christianity rather than, say, 100 other religions that could grab one's attention, and possible allegiance. I consider all religions as having value as long as they make you a better person. What I have described are the beginnings of how one might get to the level of person experience you are referencing. I don't claim to be an expert in this area. And you made a valid point. Becoming intellectually intrigued can be a gateway to experience provided it is let go of at the proper time so that you are able to see first. You can always think and feel about it later. This does not mean that you become an idiot. The intellect (and emotions) are put into their proper relation to a greater living Insight which is takes precedence over both. It is this moral insight which allows you the free choice to override both the intellect and the emotions when necessary in order to do what's right. I have heard a fair number of Christians make statements along the lines of "you either get or it you don't" when referencing the basis of their faith. This actually sells the "argument" for Christianity quite short, in my opinion. It all depends on whether or not you want to get it. It's a matter of first making an empty space inside of yourself and then learning how to wait patiently. But for those who are already puffed up with ~feeling~ of completeness in their intellect, there's no room. And God never intrudes. He simply lets them go the way they already had chosen to harvest what they planted. I also want to make something clear since this topic is open: You DO NOT have to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of doing what's morally right. If you love what's right enough to do it, you're already loving God. And if you continue on the right path of right doing, at the right time He will make Himself known to you alone, and in no uncertain terms. And from that moment onward you will know for yourself. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I also want to make something clear since this topic is open:You DO NOT have to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of doing what's morally right. If you love what's right enough to do it, you're already loving God. And if you continue on the right path of right doing, at the right time He will make Himself known to you alone, and in no uncertain terms. And from that moment onward you will know for yourself. GregAny mode of thought that leads to a correct and coherent position is kosher. What matters is where you arrive, not how you thought your way there.Some of the most ethically and morally upright people I know do are not inflicted with religion and superstition.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I also want to make something clear since this topic is open:You DO NOT have to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of doing what's morally right. If you love what's right enough to do it, you're already loving God. And if you continue on the right path of right doing, at the right time He will make Himself known to you alone, and in no uncertain terms. And from that moment onward you will know for yourself. GregAny mode of thought that leads to a correct and coherent position is kosher. What matters is where you arrive, not how you thought your way there.Some of the most ethically and morally upright people I know do are not inflicted with religion and superstition.Ba'al Chatzaf"Kosher" is not kosher.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I also want to make something clear since this topic is open: You DO NOT have to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of doing what's morally right. If you love what's right enough to do it, you're already loving God. And if you continue on the right path of right doing, at the right time He will make Himself known to you alone, and in no uncertain terms. And from that moment onward you will know for yourself. GregAny mode of thought that leads to a correct and coherent position is kosher. What matters is where you arrive, not how you thought your way there. I am not referring to thinking... but to seeing. Your thoughts are no more reliable than your emotions for moral guidance in the moment... but at least they're better than nothing. Seeing is so far more immediate than thought, people aren't aware of it. So they regard their thoughts as the source of guidance without becoming aware of that to which their thoughts are reacting. Some of the most ethically and morally upright people I know do are not inflicted with religion and superstition. ...as do I. Nevertheless, God is not a religious superstition, and so cannot be rightfully blamed for how people fail to properly relate to Him . Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ...as do I. Nevertheless, God is not a religious superstition, and so cannot be rightfully blamed for how people fail to properly relate to Him .GregThen God is dead?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Seeing is so far more immediate than thought, people aren't aware of it. So they regard their thoughts as the source of guidance without becoming aware of that to which their thoughts are reacting.Here is an interesting area of the human/body/mind/soul.You are describing direct perception, awareness that does not "fit," in a cookiecutter way...correct?A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Seeing is so far more immediate than thought, people aren't aware of it. So they regard their thoughts as the source of guidance without becoming aware of that to which their thoughts are reacting. Here is an interesting area of the human/body/mind/soul. You are describing direct perception, awareness that does not "fit," in a cookiecutter way...correct? A... Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ...as do I. Nevertheless, God is not a religious superstition, and so cannot be rightfully blamed for how people fail to properly relate to Him . Greg Then God is dead? --Brant People are dead to God. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ...as do I. Nevertheless, God is not a religious superstition, and so cannot be rightfully blamed for how people fail to properly relate to Him .Greg Then God is dead?--BrantPeople are dead to God.GregMore true than you might have intended. A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC, or at least around the time of the Babylonian captivity. He doesn't even make an appearance in the Book of Esther (going from memory here...). Even the watered-down references to God in Ecclesiastes (my favorite book of the Bible, by the way) very likely date back to 700-800 BC.I know you will not like a reference to books, but Carl Jung once wrote in his Answer to Job that God was so traumatized by the way He treated Job--and the way Job inadvertently shamed Him--that God actually changed His mind, entered the world as a human in the form of Christ (which, by the way, solved many if not all Law of Identity issues that Objectivists have always struggled with about the "concept" of God) and decided to set things right with His people. Kind of like an abusive Father who decides one day, once and for all, that He is going to quit drinking and hitting His child. After God makes this decision, we have Jesus making an appearance in history, and the events of the New Testament, which very clearly emphasizes God's love far beyond anything in the Old Testament, with the exception of the very odd and problematic Book of Revelation. The New Testament shows that people are not dead to God. But we pretty much were for quite some time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC... Publicly... but not personally. When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom. There is now nothing between us and God. But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC...Publicly... but not personally.When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom.There is now nothing between us and God.But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit.GregIf this is true then there goes Christianity as such for there is no salvation in Jesus Christ.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC...Publicly... but not personally.When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom.There is now nothing between us and God.But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit.GregIf this is true then there goes Christianity as such for there is no salvation in Jesus Christ.--BrantThe veil in the temple story is no way supported in the Rabbinic literature following that period.It is a tale, as most things in the scripture are.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC...Publicly... but not personally.When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom.There is now nothing between us and God.But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit.GregA serious question: In your last paragraph, who do you mean by "we"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC... Publicly... but not personally. When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom. There is now nothing between us and God. But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit. Greg If this is true then there goes Christianity as such for there is no salvation in Jesus Christ. --Brant Removing the veil of separation between God and man was just one aspect of Christ's salvation, for He did much more than that. Then I heard a mighty voice from the throne and I perceived its distinct words, saying, See! The abode of God is with men, and He will live among them; and they shall be His people, and God shall personally be with them and be their God. (Revelation 21:3) Those were not idle words lightly spoken. And why would you be concerned about what salvation is or isn't when you don't believe any of this crap in the first place? Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Out of curiosity, does anyone have an objection to the "Golden Rule" as stated below?In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC...Publicly... but not personally. When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom. There is now nothing between us and God. But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit. Greg A serious question: In your last paragraph, who do you mean by "we"? Just the general "we" meaning most people, not a personal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 A Jew might say God has gone pretty quiet since about 500-600 BC... Publicly... but not personally. When Christ died, the veil separating the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn open from top to bottom. There is now nothing between us and God. But we remain dead to God because we lack awareness from already being filled with our own intellectual conceit. Greg If this is true then there goes Christianity as such for there is no salvation in Jesus Christ. --BrantThe veil in the temple story is no way supported in the Rabbinic literature following that period. There is no reason it would, because it was a New Testament event relevant to Christianity. However, in the Torah there are references to the veil in the Temple which separated the Holy of Holies. The Lord said to Moses, Tell Aaron your brother he must not come at all times into the Holy of Holies within the VEIL before the mercy seat upon the ark, lest he die; for I will appear in the cloud on the mercy seat. Leviticus 16:2 It is a tale, as most things in the scripture are. There is always a tendency to grind beautiful principles into little pieces of dogma by haggling over minutiae. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Out of curiosity, does anyone have an objection to the "Golden Rule" as stated below? In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . . A... I sure don't. That universal moral principle can be found within many religions. In my opinion, that enhances it's validity even more. Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I sure don't. That universal moral principle can be found within many religions. In my opinion, that enhances it's validity even more.GregThe more correct version of the so-called Golden Rule is the one taught by R. Hillel. Do not do unto others what you find hateful if done unto you.Of course this does not apply if someone has initiated force or violence against you or has committed fraud or slander against you. . Naturally you defend and retaliate if necessary.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Out of curiosity, does anyone have an objection to the "Golden Rule" as stated below?In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .A...Adam,A few quibbles.For instance, if I were a sadomasochist and wanted to practice the golden rule, it could get fun to know I was moral after causing all kinds of hell. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Out of curiosity, does anyone have an objection to the "Golden Rule" as stated below? In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . . A... Adam, A few quibbles. For instance, if I were a sadomasochist and wanted to practice the golden rule, it could get fun to know I was moral after causing all kinds of hell. Michael You reminded me of an old joke: Masochist: "Hit me." Sadist: "I won't." Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Out of curiosity, does anyone have an objection to the "Golden Rule" as stated below?In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .A...Adam,A few quibbles.For instance, if I were a sadomasochist and wanted to practice the golden rule, it could get fun to know I was moral after causing all kinds of hell. MichaelLol...a circular whip with no tip or handle - way too confusingA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Here's another.Suppose I want to commit suicide, but want someone else to do it for me because I'm chickshit.The Golden Rule gets messy with that one.Or suppose the greatest thing I want is for people to keep me from having wealth so I will not fall into temptation of greed. Should I treat others the way I want to be treated?Suppose I'm a sex fiend who wants to be gang-raped.I came up with these off the top of my head. And I can keep on going without any effort.I think I'm damaged goods. The point is, the Golden Rule needs a tiny qualification, like saying it is a good rule of thumb for mostly normal people, not the fringe. Or limiting it to specific types of situations.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now