Sorry, I hope that I wasn’t wrong, and that you’re not being ironic. In either case, apologies if any are called for. — Wayfarer

I was jokin' with you, X-)

There’s a Franciscan monk, Father Richard Rohr, who is a popular speaker and author on these topics. The book I have of his on the subject is called ‘Falling Upwards’, and it’s very much about this kind of idea. — Wayfarer

I'll look him up, thanks.

Too bad this isn't entirely facetious.

I’ll let the OP make her own judgement. — Wayfarer

Ah, good that you caught onto this. I was just musing with a friend of mine last night that I've decided to become a woman. Thank you for the pronoun respect, Wayflower, :P (Y)

The suggestion here is always, implicitly, that appealing to the more "vulgar" passions would be permissible, because those decisions don't matter within the scope of eternity. My question is: why do they matter within the scope of eternity? Or if eternity doesn't exist, why do they matter within the scope of one's given life span? — Noble Dust

Again, it seems that doing good on earth is intended to get us closer to God, or salvation, but my wrestling now has to do with whether we can ever shed this seemingly futile clambering toward God and just arrive. In other words, get back to being in God. To attach ourselves once again to God's love without our sin dragging us away. If you've read Eckhart, you'll be familiar then with most translations describing this attachment to God as being a kind of sinking into him. That is, we're sinking back into the primordial waters that is God's creative love.

I'm a noob, I'm just getting into the mystics, but I'm feeling right at home reading Evelyn Underhill's "Mysticism". I've read a little Julian of Norwhich, a little Boehme, and a little Eckhart. Oh and some William Blake. Eckhart was the hardest for me to get into, but I have a long way to go. But I was first introduced to them through reading Nikolai Berdyaev. I was introduced to him through Madeline L'Engle, of all people. Actually, my exploration of mysticism has been pretty mystical, in the sense that it's random and not at all academic, and mainly driven by my own intuition. — Noble Dust

I've tended to stick with Eckhart, Tauler, and Suso. That little circle of mystics got it right, in my opinion.

Right, I was just stating that for clarity. Of course, Paul's issue with good works was that "no man should boast"; basically the danger of legalism. But, how do good works obtain within a short 70 year life span, if a world of eternity exists afterwards? What's so important about this incomprehensible life with regards to the supposed after life? That concept, to me, seems like an unessisary antrhopomorphisation. — Noble Dust

I think the logic goes that doing good is to grow closer to God, as God is Goodness. I just wonder when we actually arrive to be in God, as it were, and we cease getting closer and closer and closer. Was it Xeno who discussed this paradox where you can't actually get to ten if you start with 1 and then half every number afterward? If salvation or heaven or whatever is "ten", then we can't ever get there.

Because it's a suicide attempt, or what? — Noble Dust

What do you mean?

Yeah, I do think there's something there. But I don't think denial of God in this life leads to hell, because I don't understand the importance of this life vs. eternity, if eternity does in fact exist. So if someone denies God in this life, what makes anyone so certain that the transition to the next life would not a) change that person's attitude towards eternity, or b) signify some sort of arbitrary cutting off point? The idea that it does signify that cutting off point just reeks of humanity's horror and fear towards the unknown of death. There's no actual surety when dealing with the problem of death. Remaining unsure (and thus hopeful) here seems wisest. — Noble Dust

I'm not sure if every Christian thinker posits that hell is actually eternal for each soul, only that hell itself is an eternal state, or lack thereof, for those to arrive in.

there's an Unconditional Love which is without predicate, and is the Reality which all life is bathed in. — Noble Dust

I think unconditional love without predicate would be God himself. But how that relates to us is the question, whether the love in us is conditional or predicated - I think it is, sin being the crux.

His strength and his brilliance came from his weakness, slavery to God set him free. — Cavacava

You appear to be suggesting that slavery is good if one is a slave to the right person or thing. Strange, as I remember you being on the "tear down any 'Confederate' statue" boat because they represented slavery, presumably.

Keep in mind that in Indian religion, it is precisely the karmic treadmill, known as samsara, that one endeavors to liberate oneself from. — Thorongil

I'd liken this treadmill to Christian purgatory. My point being that one does not presumably go directly from living a life to being saved or attaining enlightenment. Even the "faith alone" Protestant Christians don't know for certain that they will be saved. No Christian does. This is why I brought up the distinction between believing in the possibility of salvation and believing in salvation explicitly. Either way, salvation isn't guaranteed, even when a religious tells you that you have to belief. One must first believe in order to unlock the possibility of salvation, which is, to me, a dreadfully backwards notion.

I don't think we have that kind of power. — Thorongil

I agree.

Do you mean to say the Christian God believes that humans will be saved? I think it's rather that he desires this. — Thorongil

I think if he didn't have confidence that we'd believe in him he'd have never sent Jesus Christ.

What matters, of course, is what God thinks it means. — Thorongil

Too bad we can't know that.

You might, but I should think you would want to explore all the baskets instead of just arbitrarily halting at the position you currently occupy. You can't advance the likelihood by standing still where you are now, but it may be that you can get closer by putting your eggs in one basket, after having determined to a reasonable degree that you ought to put them there. — Thorongil

This means that you think belief is required for salvation, and that one must choose one sort of salvation over another, ya?

Love is unconditional. A loving parent gives their child what is necessary for their flourishing, without conditions. If God is Love, and Salvation is a flourishing state, she will give it to every one of her children, without imposing conditions. — andrewk

So what's the point of doing good on earth if we all are saved without even needing to try and live moral lives? This cleansing of oneself is an especially prevalent idea in Buddhism, wherein you go through a multitude of different steps on your path toward enlightenment. You don't just live and then die and be saved. This is why it would seem that belief in salvation is at least required, otherwise you are in fact just a fat doughnut eater who will get a pass through the pearly gates like everyone else. If so, then life as a state of suffering becomes an entirely meaningless affair.

Changing the first letter of your name will do that to you, O:)

I think the mystics get closest — Noble Dust

Who do you admire?

Salvation is a lot harder for me to parse at this point. I get the general Christian sense of it, from being raised with it. I think the popularly accepted, simplest concept is: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but Jesus offers salvation through...yep, belief in him. — Noble Dust

Indeed, but this framework alone misses out on good works, which are discussed elsewhere in the Bible.

So, conditional salvation doesn't make sense. So salvation must be unconditional. The condition of belief can't be a predicate for salvation. If you're drowning in a river, you don't need to believe, or trust, or be confident that I can save you in order for me to actually successfully save you. — Noble Dust

Perhaps in this example God is attempting to save us from drowning, but we swipe his hand away. What then? It seems God must let us deny him (belief in him) even though letting us drown also goes against his nature to love.

So an unconditional salvation would stem from that reality. — Noble Dust

What's this look like, exactly? You might have already described it, and forgive me if you have, but I'm still curious.

Interesting. Coolest atmospheric thing I've ever seen here is a sunset behind an approaching storm cloud, painted the cloud and sky red. Was freaky.

On the lake? :O

Thanks :) I would, but I'm afraid of sharks :D And I can't swim. — Aurora

Ah, now we're learning more about you! If you live in the states, you could theoretically walk all the way south to the tip of Argentina. Do the lights extend to Argentina?

Welcome to the forum, nerds.

I just don't know if I can make it to the Southern hemisphere, though — Aurora

Build a boat and start sailing!

~ Another thought: is believing in the possibility of salvation the same as believing in salvation? I would count myself as someone who certainly entertains salvation (overcoming suffering, one's own sin, etc.) as a possibility, even though I don't adhere to any specific path toward salvation, be it Christian, Buddhist, or another. In light of this, am I believing enough in order to be saved, or must I go out on a limb and put all my eggs in one notion of salvation's basket? After all, believing in one kind of salvation over another doesn't ensure that you're saved! This, I think, is the dilemma I'm getting at. Seems a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation.

it is unimaginable that salvation can be forced upon someone against his will, or that God would force belief upon some subject (and this is relevant to the example of your interaction with your friend). But it is also unimaginable that salvation can be achieved without external assistance — Mariner

I agree.

The entire concept of salvation, of course, is predicated on a, let's say, Abrahamic anthropology that views man as at least mildly tainted (on a spectrum that goes all the way to fully damned). If man is intrinsically good, then salvation makes no sense. In that sense, the translation of the concept "salvation" to a Hindu worldview is problematic. — Mariner

Could you expand on this?

St. Thomas needed proof — John

What do you mean?

Without establishing a starting point (read: defining "belief" and salvation"), how can you proceed? — tim wood

I agree. — Agustino

I used Christianity and Buddhism as examples with the assumption that readers would understand what religious belief and salvation mean in those contexts.

There also seem to be two notions of salvation at play. The salvation you're talking about with regards to your friend I suppose isn't a religious form of salvation, is it? I mean you're not a Christian anymore as far as I know, right? — Agustino

No and no. I used my friend as an example just to provide a less theological/philosophical angle on the topic.

I answered 'No', because if a God exists, I have to believe he's not a complete dick, which is what he would be if he condemned someone to eternal damnation because they didn't believe in him, when they had absolutely no control over the inputs of their creation, nor the environment into which they were born. — CasKev

I'd say that this has become a common, modern sentiment, one that I tend to agree with.

The fundamental issue with a lot of women's sports is the quality of the play. As a soccer fan, it's both comical and sad how rubbish the play is. It's Sunday league terrible. And when you're attempting to sell a product, as you've worded it, that product needs to be worth investing in. You can come up with all the advertising, branding, and so on, but it's moot if what is actually watched is garbage. Maybe some people don't watch women's sports because they're sexist or something, but I'm not so sure. I'd watch WNBA, for example, if I enjoyed watching the play. But I don't, so I don't watch it. Just as I don't watch semi-pro footballers fumbling around.

I'd say that the most watched and appreciated women's sports are those where the line between the genders is the least obvious. I suppose if you watch sports just to watch sports it doesn't matter, but if you're someone like me who likes to watch it for the tactics first and the emotions second, I'm not going to watch it because it's crap.

I do not have the habit of being overcome by cynicism. But the little bit of cynicism in me is tempted to wonder if women's sports as we know them have nothing to do with sports or female athletes and are nothing more than a platform that has been manufactured to advance certain ideologies. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's stretching it, in my opinion. What women sports/female athletes do you have in mind here?

Gated access to money would merely switch to gated access to robots. And seeing as the rich would be the only ones able to fund and use the first robots, the rich even without money would be rich in robots and they'd make sure that the kids in Yemen aren't getting fed or the people fleeing Burma don't have a place to sleep. Human nature predicates money, robots, etc. Until you fix human nature (good luck with that), there's not going to be a magic bullet.

Apologies for the late reply, escaped my mind.

I'm not saying that there can be rights without morality. I'm saying that there can be morality without rights. — Michael

I can grant this, but I'd be curious to know how you'd define a right, natural or no.

It can be wrong to kill even if nobody has a right to live, e.g. with consequentialism, divine command theory, virtue ethics, or the first formulation of the categorial imperative. — Michael

Again, what's a right to you?

My friends might look for revenge; I might be the only doctor in the community, and he might be very sick; I could pay him off; etc.

There are plenty of reasons not to kill someone that don't depend on believing that people have a right to live. — Michael

You'd still need to answer why? questions in those examples.

Do you want an edit of your paper? :)

And I think philosophy papers tend to rely on definition of terms more than other disciplines, so if you fail to do that or make sense from the beginning, you'll be drowning immediately.

only Bible reveals that a human is not capable of bringing himself or herself to God, so salvation from this state is 100% on God's grace. — Henri

James 2:26, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Would you agree that what you're really asking is why you exist? Why you are?

I'll respond later when I get back. Gotta go, (Y)

A consequentialist, virtue ethicist, or divine command theorist, for example, can argue for object moral principles without arguing for natural rights.

Perhaps even a deontologist can argue the same. Does the duty not to kill require a right not to be killed? I see no prima facie reason to believe that. — Michael

A right, whether thought to be natural or not, contains moral quality, so I can't see how a right, thus, is without any moral consideration. It'd be difficult to argue that how one ought to act is not dependent upon themselves or others.

It's possible to convince someone not to do something without persuading him that it's wrong. Perhaps there will be consequences to him killing you that he'd rather not face (or consequences to killing him that are more appealing than satisfying his desire to kill). — Michael

Appealing how? Instead of wrong you'd have to somehow falsify their intention to kill you? How would you do that? Again, natural rights would go both ways, in that one's own right ought not be broken with regards to another's same right.

Great, thanks guys (Y)

Are we still unable to block or ignore a user so that their posts don't automatically show up as being visible?

Sorry about that. I won't make that same mistake twice. — Sapientia

Once again you show that you don't care. I'm done interacting with you.

I don't think you need to use a notion of natural rights to argue that killing is wrong. — Michael

I'm not denying that someone can attempt to argue a relativist ethics with regard to what constitutes moral quality.

And, of course, you can reason with a would-be killer without bringing up morality at all. So it's not entirely clear what you're trying to say. — Michael

What, then, would your argument be? Wrongness is a quality of morality, so you'd have a difficult time, as I see it, arguing with someone who wouldn't be compelled not to do what he desires.

Does Jaffa discuss any economics or is it purely about rights? Surely Douglass would've held a more nuanced position about slavery, couldn't be that simple.

Yes, why would you want to elaborate in a discussion of all places? What is this? Some kind of forum? — Sapientia

You clipped the rest of what I said, which answered your question. But good job showing me how little you actually care about the substance of others' words.

As for your other post, I'm not going to take your bait and go down the shit-hole like Thorongil did only to be brow-beaten by you because you're so easily affronted by disagreement. Anyway, if you want to discuss natural rights, maybe start another thread where more posters can share their thoughts. At present, this thread is a gangbang.

Anyhoo, I'm off to sip some hot tea and snuggle with my pup - toodles never-sappy, Sappy!

Denying someone a gun is not denying them a right to life. — ProbablyTrue

That's not quite what I said. My point was that denying the existence of inherent rights in nature - which entails yourself - means denying an inherent right in one to defend themselves; in other words, their natural right to life.

As I think Thorongil attempted to bring up, if someone does not possess a natural right to owning a gun (I would argue that one does not), then the next step is whether one possesses the natural right to self defense. That's where I would say, YES, we do. Yet, Sapientia, for example, wouldn't say that, as he doesn't believe in natural rights, meaning that rights, such as a right to life, is not natural (inherent to one's being), but relative to the laws passed stating that they apply.

I laughed at this, and Sapientia, because relative rights entails relative ethics, which are flawed piles of illogical crap. That's all perhaps fit for another thread, though.

Edit: Just to make it crystal clear, a right to life without natural rights is one dependent upon laws. Were there no laws, then Sapientia would presumably be without any reasoned defense if someone wanted to end his life.

If that's the case, then you'd fit right in, as your own comments have been belittling. But maybe it's for the best if you have little of substance to say and don't care to elaborate when pressed. — Sapientia

Why would I want to elaborate? Thorongil's been elaborating and providing substantive exposition on the topic of this thread for 6 pages now, such that it still hasn't made a lick of difference. Why? Because it would seem that you concur with Andrew and think that the only substantive argument to be had is the argument that runs congruent with yours.

Now, please give me your stock response to any and all disagreements and tell me that I need to read your posts again, that what I've said is uncharitable and wrong, I should go read philosophy, that I'm insane, yada yada.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for further explanation from Andrew, as it was he whom I had originally responded to, not you.

I'm laughing from the sidelines, actually. Why join when I agree with Thorongil and will be belittled?

Pardon me but I must go, gotta go publish an article about this fascinating topic, (Y)

But postmodernism adheres to a rejection of natural rights. It's a hallmark of postmodernist thought, regardless of its rejection beforehand.

Anyway, the semantics of my point wasn't my point.

Looks like he changed his mind. Sad!

I think the endowment effect is a large part of why people are reluctant to give up their guns. — ProbablyTrue

Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey.

I think you're right that no resolution is going to be obtained between you and those that don't believe your argument. If it was going to happen, I think one side or the other would have acknowledged the other's point. — andrewk

>:O Wowzers!

You've just qualified the acknowledgement of Thorongil's argument as being contingent upon your own believing it to be true. Lordy, no wonder a proper debate isn't going to happen between you guys when you can't even agree to walk through the door together.

Way to miss the mark, Andrew!

Perhaps a more productive strategy would be to submit your argument to a philosophy journal as a paper for publication. If they agree with you that it is an unassailable argument I expect they will be eager to publish it, since it will finally settle a controversial aspect of one of the most hotly debated topics - albeit only in one country, — andrewk

Yeah, it's certainly true that every argument must be published in some journal so that it can be read by nobody, (Y)

Shut up, Dad.

Why is an atheist interested in Christian mysticism and the experience of the divine? — Agustino

Because that's what my poet's heart manifests its interest in when I read philosophy.

? — Wayfarer

What, what?

I am a Spiritual Warrior. Honesty is important to me, almost to a fault. I try really hard to never give my word if I cannot uphold it. I am a protector of animals and their environment both domestic and wild and have been known to be a Momma Bear with her cubs. My faith lays within the idea of Karma, in that I need not even scores, for Karma will take care of it for me. I think of life having a Karmic Banking account and the more positive deposits I can make and the less negative with drawls I can make the better. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Mother Tiff the most real poster on this forum! :)

And Tiff, you gotta introduce yourself, too, c'mon!

Hi, my name's Buxtebuddha, and I hate the moderators on this forum.

Additionally, I'm mostly interested in Christian mysticism and other topics relating to the experience of the divine >:) (Y)

Real miracles as opposed to fake miracles? >:O