Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more posturing, >:O

Well, to play the devil's advocate once again (an ironic phrase in this instance), the Christian might respond to as follows. God is indeed ultimately responsible for everything, including the fall, but this is precisely why he sent his son, Jesus, to redeem his creation. If he did not do this, then we would, as you imply, be obliged to think of him as wicked. All the same, in a proximate sense, humans are still responsible for the fall. — Thorongil

Does this mean that God was wicked before he sent himself in Christ to redeem the world?

~

If it is in God's very nature to create, then he cannot thus abort the world once it falls to sin, as such would be against his nature. Although, wouldn't "aborting" the world actually be an act of God's will to create, that in destroying the world he thus creates nothing in its place? Perhaps in this way, creation ends up just being a not-so-merry-go-round.

I think it's fair to blame the volcano for the lava it makes which then destroys a town, just as one might blame God for having made fallible creatures that then destroy the world.

Edit: I'm reminded of the recent reporting on Remington having to recall and replace millions of rifles because of a defect in the safety system, which when flipping it on or off, actually fired the gun, resulting in a lot of false murder charges. So, is it the defective gun's fault for killing people, or is it the creator(s) fault for having made defective guns? At least in reality, Remington, as much as they tried to deflect blame, ended up being forced to take blame, quite rightly, in my opinion.

Children born are the regrettable products of foolish people who conflate love with sentiment. Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone needs to apply their love. Thus, the thinking goes that, "Ah, if I but have a child, I'm then obligated to love that child until I die, therefore freeing me of the need to find how best to apply myself!" Problem is that we are fallible and fallen creatures, so parents, after having made the mistake of having a child, realize that they aren't always able to love their child, and are right back where they were before. They forget the person in bed with them, and all the suffering folks out in the world already, right now, that ought to be loved first instead of loving, or attempting to love, that which does not exist. Instead of wrestling with the present, they cling to sentiments about the future, about having a child that is constructed by them exactly how they want, failing to realize that once that child enters the world, they lose what fantasies they had and end up with a much harsher reality.

Also...

For you virtue-fetishizers on here.. self-actualization seems to me very aligned with several versions of the virtuous person, so you don't have to replace it- it can be roughly equivalent. — schopenhauer1

I'd argue that the virtuous person hasn't actualized themselves, but rather, has actualized the potential virtues within them. To be virtuous does not elevate one's person, merely what virtue is being expressed more fully.

Also, also, I'd say that most people think that having a child is the most fulfilling and self-actualizing action one could take. And, just as before, this is the case whether they realize it or not.

I don't define God — TimeLine

I believe in God. — TimeLine

God is moral excellence — TimeLine

God is moral excellence and you are striving to God - that is, striving to Moral Excellence or the platonic Form of Good. — TimeLine

What's with the capitalization? What does any of this mean??

When you look deep within yourself, do you see anything? Can you define time? We can semantically attach terms like love, kindness, good, patience, but who we are is an activity that only you would genuinely understand. — TimeLine

You're losing me already, fuckmesideways. Yes, I can define time, love, patience, iPhones, pewter cups, etc. What is your point?

People need to attach temporal and prescribe anthropomorphic qualities to God in order to make sense of something only faith can (and I understand the difficulty between faith and reason vis-a-vis their relationship with what could be established as justifiably accurate, but consider faith to be faith in yourself that what you feel is right). — TimeLine

I don't give a damn about what anybody feels is right. You either convince me through argument or not at all.

Alright, at this point, I really cannot proceed with addressing anything else that you've written to me. You MUST define what you hold love, rational autonomy, and moral excellence to be. If you can't do that, I can't discuss with you in any meaningful way. You are hip firing this discussion into oblivion when it doesn't have to. Please, tell me what those three things mean.

Against what, exactly? As I said, I believe in God. — TimeLine

You believe in that which you've not defined? Bruv, that makes no sense, :s

There is no 'way' there is only 'your way' and no one is able to provide you with explicit answers on how to attain genuine moral consciousness. — TimeLine

Great. So if my way includes finding you, chopping you up into itty bitty little pieces, and then feasting on your flesh, I guess you'll have to just lump it and be okay with that.

Each and every individual' existential experiences and cognition capacities differ. You can mimic your way, replicate the traditions and adhere to the expectations - just as much as an AI can absorb and reiterate information - but you will never attain the authenticity, the consciousness that will enable you to be decisive, to become aware of your flaws, to feel remorse for your failures and objectively assess and reason your emotional states that can otherwise be highly influential to your actions and decisions.

This is just a relativist echo chamber. How are you supposed to discern objectively what your flaws are, or even what a flaw is, if you limit understanding of morality solely to the subjective self?

You need to feel and think for yourself. — TimeLine

As opposed to feeling for other people.

This is why priests can wear the image of morality and commit atrocities behind closed doors. — TimeLine

Huh? Priests don't assert themselves as moral superiors, so this is just a non sequitur. Perhaps you'd realize this if you knew more about, in this case, the Catholic Church. Clearly just reading the Bible hasn't aided in your understanding.

I'm not sure what you mean here. — TimeLine

Well, I guess reread it.

The problem here is that you are implying that moral excellence somehow means the eradication of your ego - of the self - as though one is required to sacrifice themselves to something greater than themselves. — TimeLine

Yes, and why is this a problem?

This is what I mean about having to eradicate all the learned customs and traditions and transcend toward rational autonomy. — TimeLine

Customs and traditions like the use of language? Better eradicate if you'd like to attain this floaty "rational autonomy."

So, is it not possible to apply the right compassion and love to the community while at the same time caring for yourself and being happy? — TimeLine

One cannot love oneself, so not really, no.

You cannot define love and expect through rules or codes of conduct that people will achieve that sense of goodness and peace. — TimeLine

I agree. Yet, you seem to have forgotten that this also includes your own rules and codes of conduct, the ones that you've made yourself, which means that your pursuit for perfection is a fool's errand, as it stands.

And when one transcends to a level of rational autonomy, striving toward moral excellence, only then are they capable of authentically loving since only then are they morally conscious. — TimeLine

What is rational autonomy in your estimation? Also, what is moral excellence? And, how do you define love?

If, at that point, they reach that sense of love, than the person they choose to spend their lives with must also have the same level of autonomy and together - though they remain independent - willingly choose to develop and grow. — TimeLine

This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me. Love is not a sense, nor is it some carrot dangling that, once snatched, gives one a key that unlocks in them an understanding of how best to live their life.

This then extends to the community and you cannot go wrong when you are morally conscious. — TimeLine

Yes you can. Being conscious of the good doesn't somehow magically prohibit us then from doing ill deeds.

You only need religion when you are incapable of thinking independently — TimeLine

Just as the scientist is not independent when having to submit his or her research to other scientists for critique within a larger scientific community, one that has rules and regulations, expectations and requirements? Perhaps you're in favor of removing all the silly tape surrounding the means with which doctors and physicians attain their degrees, since institutions are only run for the shit-for-brains and sheeple, yes?

and I would have agreed wholeheartedly that if the Church fostered independent thinking - which it certainly doesn't - that it would be beneficial to the community — TimeLine

Independence is not egotism. Stop conflating the two.

but all it does is restrain people from the Holy Spirit if you know what I mean.

Are you being purposely esoteric, dude?

I don't define God — TimeLine

Wait, but you still believe in God? Didn't you just write that before or no? :s

what we attribute to God are properties or representations that attempt to affirm our inferiority and the perfections we should strive towards. — TimeLine

If we should strive toward them, why be against, then?

If I am striving toward moral excellence without necessitating any recognition from a person or community or institution, because of the absence of 'codes' that regulate behaviour, my endeavour can be discredited by the prejudice that no one can can authentically reach this higher state without guidance and the approval by an authority or higher figure. — TimeLine

Depends on what moral excellence looks like for you, and why you've set that as your goal.

Also, is this moral excellence of yours conceived as being potentially greater than, say, what some of the medieval Christian saints appear to have attained? If Christianity helps you in becoming a Saint Francis or Bonaventure, uh, what's stopping you from working toward that within an explicitly religious framework. (devil's advocate here, btw :-* )

In the end, what you are striving for is others. It is the same with what you read and accept; should I avoid Heidegger because of his personal choices, or should I accept all of what he writes, rather than just read and appreciate what aspects of his work may be sensible? — TimeLine

Well, you're getting at a pretty big difference between philosophy and theology, here; namely, how each are applied to and in the world. Philosophy doesn't really have a component of evangelization - theology does. To me, this is one key in distinguishing between how one ought to read a Heidegger, Kant, Bitter Crank, whomever else, in contrast to an Aquinas or John Paul II, for example.

I have read the New Testament, indeed the Old Testament and the Qur'an, and there is wisdom and a great many moral suggestions that I appreciate and adhere to, but certainly not all. How I choose to interpret that is mine and mine alone without the influence of a religious institution' interpretation. — TimeLine

A problem I find with this is that you're attempting to attain moral excellence through seemingly egotistical means. It can't all be about you when morality itself requires the application of right compassion and love. Ethics require a kind of community, agreement on how to interact. If you get rid of a system, say, like the Catholic Church, some would argue that you're getting rid of a necessary step on the road toward making better sure that you are treating others as well as you are able to - which, as a result, is the only way in which one's own morality can be fostered.

If reaching a state of moral perfection is entirely a subjective endeavour, — TimeLine

...

hence why Jesus spoke in parables, then how does practicing a religion influence the independence or autonomy required for one to achieve this?

Each individual creates the world upon coming into being, but the world, once made, serves each individual as a whole. Think Tower of Babel.

If you've defined God as such and such, which is the same as, let's say, in Christianity, then why aren't you, then, a practicing Christian?

if I follow no religion and I believe in God, that this certainty is based on faith alone without any symbiotic attachment to overcome the existential angst, what would that make me? — TimeLine

This would depend upon how you would define God.

Are you a nutcase? Perhaps you're contagious...

:o

Is it common for you to come into contact with nutcases like that? >:O

I could, but I'm sure you could be creative enough to think of one yourself. — TimeLine

This is true. However, I'd still like an example, (Y)

It is pretty self-explanatory. In the interest of provoking conversation, many people utilise various models of persuasion to justify vicious behavioural components only because they themselves are guilty of practicing such behaviour. The difference is that I am conscious of this intentional discourse and use it for objective rather than subjective purposes. — TimeLine

Could you provide an example of an exchange where this happens?

And yes, I can be vicious, but never to justify my failures. — TimeLine

Could you expand on this? O:)

You can't apply morality to that which doesn't exist - that is, the unborn child. You can, however, determine whether such a future child ought to be brought into the world in the first place, based upon whether or not such an act is moral or immoral. Now, I agree with much of your list in the OP, but I think it's important to differentiate one thing, here. When you mention parental responsibility, I would say that parents are only ever morally responsible if they had a child full well realizing that their offspring would suffer, which is honestly the least loving act one could will, and is, in fact, perhaps the most heinous, in my estimation. Yet, I don't think most parents are conscious of this factoring in when they make the decision to have a child, they merely follow a path of reckless, happy-go-lucky sentiment, which results, rather regrettably, in a negligent act. But is such an act of negligence immoral when the parents' intentions were not necessarily to bring a child into the world despite its future suffering? I don't think so. The intentions have to be there, otherwise the enterprise of assigning guilt becomes unfruitful. Regardless, if two parents acknowledge before choosing to have a child that said child will suffer, then that's where I would pipe up. Such is both negligent and immoral, as each parent is passively willing their child to suffer.

This distinction is perhaps what grinds my gears the most, from an intellectual standpoint. More emotionally, though, I just think of all the suffering that I've experienced so far in my life, and I can't even begin to fathom me choosing to bring a child into such a world as this one. I don't wish ill upon upon even my worst enemy, so the thought of actively willing that pain upon an innocent that need not even exist in the first place would be a monumental mistake.

;)

Stop weeping.

I suspect Jesus never had a friend, really. At least, we never hear of one, though it's claimed he "loved" John--according to John, in any case. It seems he was fond of Lazarus, however. I suspect the many Caesars had friends, though very few. — Ciceronianus the White

I've no idea what you're going on about, now.

Everybody wants to be "a friend of Jesus" just as everybody wanted to be "a friend of Caesar." — Ciceronianus the White

But being a friend of Caesar isn't the same as being a "friend" of Jesus.

religions are cultural constructs — jkop

It might interest you that 'salve' and 'salvation' have the same root (obvious, when pointed out.) But I think from a philosophy of religion viewpoint, the question that needs to be asked is, what is the source of the 'salve' which religion claims to provide? — Wayfarer

When I took Latin in high school salvo meant "sustain", more or less. So, salvation would entail whatever might be permanently sustained, such as, in the Christian tradition, one's lower being residing within God after death, for example - this predicated by faith whilst living, of course. In this sense you can see why the bodily flesh, technology, or mere human ingenuity can become God-like constructs, "things" that can be thought to sustain pleasure, life, notions of progress, etc.

smh

Ah, so is hedonism where all begins and ends with, now? ;)

Religion will win in the end.

Agreed. Hedonism is and will be modernity's favorite new religion.

Foolish anti-theists think they can actually eliminate a religion, not realizing that as they more broadly attack the religion as a whole the more they generate widespread sympathy for it. — VagabondSpectre

I dunno about this in all cases. I see a lot of (sometimes well deserved) hassling of Christians and Jews which hasn't really brought about any sort of counter-sympathy, only more hate and faulty generalizations.

Me either, so it's odd to be in the position of "defending" one. I have curbed my anti-theism a bit though. Secular liberal consumer societies are no panacea. — Baden

I can just see you now, gulping a kelp shake and watching Al Jazeera on the tele, with a yoga mat 'neath your bum.

Defining religion is a mess. I thought everyone knew that, :P

Because religion at its heart is a communal construct, an institution. In all honesty, I'd argue that religion is most likely inherently institutional to begin with. Spirituality isn't always, however, which I think is what some here are trying to distinguish?

This claim is often made by Christian apologists, but never credibly substantiated. The arguments made for it are usually circular - eg all the scientists were Christians, or literacy was centred in the Church - therefore without Christianity there would have been no scientists and little literacy. — andrewk

I've not read this idiocy, but I'll take your word for it. There are plenty of stupid Christians out there.

It also doesn't gel with the observation that Chinese civilisation was more advanced than in the West until at least the late medieval period. — andrewk

I was critiquing Christianity's importance in Western civilization. I never denied, say, Hinduism or Buddhism's central importance in Eastern civilization.

I fully agree with Benkei's observation that religion can be a wonderful thing at a personal level, but terrible things happen when it becomes institutionalised. — andrewk

Why? If you say that religion can be a "wonderful" thing on a personal level, you must also admit that institutionalized religion can (and has been) also a "wonderful" thing.

I'd go further and say that it is desirable for there to be some way for people to form spiritual communities to share their experiences and help one another. But I've yet to figure out how that can be done without power structures arising and the inevitable corruption that comes with that. — andrewk

Well, golly gee...

Sometimes I think the Quakers might have it figured out, but I'm not even sure about that. No doubt somebody will be able to come up with an anecdote of terrible abuse of power within Quakerism. — andrewk

Their baskets are too beautiful, so I guess they must be abusing the arts, arts that wouldn't have come about without... [ERROR: INFLUENCE NOT FOUND]

I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. It is and should always have been a personal experience of the divine. — Benkei

Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. Even more generally speaking, without religious institutions, you wouldn't here and now be taking advantage of the many privileges that supposedly the "worst social construct ever created" has thus ensured, such as guaranteed healthcare, working and high quality infrastructure, a consistently safe public environment, the list goes on (which includes beer, mind you.)

Whether you like it or not, religion's importance to the world shouldn't be so quickly cast aside; nor should it be white washed as if all faiths boil down to tyranny, like radical Islam in this day and age. Regardless, humanity has relied upon religion since the very beginning, as we still do. The only question, in the end, is whether it is better to scrap the beauties found in Christianity, Buddhism, etc., or move on to worshiping modernity's new religions, such as transhumanism and relativist Atheism.

I, however, would much rather keep what we already have that's good in religion over delving deeper into the ugly, secularized, post-God cultism that religion seems to be heading toward.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'll let you guys get back to your hamfisting, then (Y)

You do realize that there are some pro-choice Christians, correct? — Arkady

What a flimsy retort, >:O

Edit: Well, so is this claim -

Atheists don't think abortion amounts to murder. — TheMadFool

Man, why'd we revive this thread only to write a bunch of stupid? :(

Gender isn't a replacement for one's sex. To conflate the two would be issue number one.

It seems that his staff is largely to blame. Had to replace the whole Executive Branch essentially, and it's not functioning particularly well.

In a private setting, I can see why ideology is helpful, but in the public space? As you mention with the therapist, the ideology in practice gets drowned out by other factors, factors that can begin to overtake the ideology's presentation and even definition.

Just because he wrote philosophy?

Mind-dependence doesn't mean that Ancient Egyptians and Velociraptors did not also exist.

Not really... What does he get so wrong? — Agustino

It's all too common for scholars to exaggerate the power of the Roman Emperor, especially after Domitian. To suggest that Aurelius was unprecedented is to peddle gold-leafed shit.

eh?

Potential.

But what about Satan? :s