1) First off, you presume at least much as you accuse me of, as your post did not 'through (sp? ;)) me into such a rage', altho' I can see how such an image would seemingly enhance the view of non-believers as being 'base animals' and nothing beyond that, yadayada. Your post did amuse and puzzle me tho'.
2) Regarding the utilitarian vs. the absolute comparison. You see, my 'utilitarian' POV does indeed include, and is based upon an absolute standard. And so does Einstein's. And it's in plain view for all to see. Ie., "sympathy, education, and social ties", and what enhances all concerned in those areas; ie., the betterment of humanity in all people do. No doubt there are other areas to keep in mind when determining such absolutes, but note that it isn't simply because aomeone in authority determines what those absolutes are for everybody, but are things that are tested and learned over time.
For example, stealing. Not only has it been established that stealing is wrong because you can get arrested and put in jail for stealing, but people of good reason, be they theistic or atheistic, have seen that stealing from another robs and hurts not only the individual being stolen from, but ultimately from society, and even from the thief himself, as he doesn't see the benefit of working and earning his way thru society.
That is but one example of what I'm talking about. Ie., instead of some High Superior Being stating what morals are, and we but obediently w/o question accept that as right or wrong, one can see through personal experience and learning from actual proof what right and wrong is. And yes, I realize that is far easier said than done.
I took your post as conveying the idea that w/o believing in the concept of god, one didn't have morals. After reading your explanation of what you posted, I withdraw the 'not having any morals' part, but still challenge the utilitarian vs. the absolute morals part of your argument, seeing that they both endeavor to get to what is right and wrong. They apparently use different standards/means of arriving at the same or similar answers. There are those however, that still maintain that atheists cannot have morals for the simple reason that they don't believe in God -- period.
(snip)
(And no Mark, I am not 'afflicted' with an evangelist's zeal either. Any more than others who post with as much 'zeal' as I do.)
Amuse and puzzle...throw into a thorough ( :) ) rage...one way or another... LOL
You state that your POV is based on absolutes...what would those absolutes be? What is the source of those absolutes? If man is the be-all and end-all, then man must be the absolute. And man can change, as you have been so wont to point out over the months and years we've been arguing.
You have listed the example of stealing as being an absolute moral wrong. I can think of a number of secular states, including many that have made absolute pronouncements of atheism as the official state policy, where collectivisation was practiced and where farms and industries were nationalized for the state. The justification: to take the capital out of the hands of the bourgeoise. Murder might also be seen as an absolute, yet I'm sure we can think of many examples where infanticide has been justified based on circumstances. I'm not trying to invoke some form of Godwin's law here, but the point is that in an environment where man sets the standards based upon himself as the reference point, seemingly obvious 'absolutes' may end up all too relative.
Utilitarianism is simply the concept of the ends justifying the means. The means may be altered as seen fit to accomplish the ends involved. And, no, I do not think that utilitarianism is a condition that solely afflicts atheists. A utilitiarian moral structure is one where the moral standards are adjusted to accomplish what is perceived to be a worthy goal. Taking the China one-child policy as an example, the "worthy goal" was one of limiting the population, seen as increasing too quickly. The mores that were altered included the value of a large family, abortion, formerly seen as a taboo being viewed as the correct thing to do, and so on. There are many more examples, but...enough
And as for your not being an evangelical...I do like the qualifier you gave that you are no more evangelical than some Christians who post on this board. You are indeed a very fervent supporter of your belief system and very vocal in your support of it...as well as being very condescending, at best, of those who do not agree with that belief system. In addition, I detect a certain desire to convince others to subscribe to those beliefs. If that's not evangelical, I don't know what is...
My son is in the Army and happens to be home for a few days...
Tillman was killed by friendly fire. So have many, many, many other soldiers. This is not a "new" thing. It is an "old" thing. And when it happens... the Army and the men who did IT... feel shame and remorse... and other horrible things - for years and years.
You attributed his story being dropped from public discorse to the fact that he was an "un-believer".
Garth. That is not the reason. Not at all. It is an issue of shame and guilt for the survivors.
His sacrifice was no more (or less!!!!!!!!!!) than anyone else who has died... in combat. Regardless of WHO killed him.
Friendly fire is fact of combat. For all countries and times, it is a well known fact.
Then… I and my son would say…
Do NOT start to change the facts so they fit a myth for your argument's benefit. It is a disgrace of the highest order.
The path from my first post several years ago would take years to describe in detail. It has been filled with a tremendous amount of reading and trials.
Please do not think that I am a bold one.
Actually, I am a chicken. I try much, MUCH less than what I read.
I am c a u t i o u s.
So... please PT me if you want anything close to details.
I do not, nor will not, put my heart on these forums. Too much fighting, if you catch my drift.
then I stand corrected as to why the newsmedia no longer carry the story of why he is no longer hailed as a hero. My apologies if it came across in an insensitive way. I used that as an example that atheists/unbelievers too are/can be just as patriotic/moral as any theist.
Mark,
I do wish to point out to you that you are mistaken in that such morals in this patriotic context is not just 'utilitarian', and thus has nothing to do with any sense of absolute morality. Going to fight for defending freedom for those here at home and abroad transcends 'utilitarian morality', regardless what you might state otherwise.
And a Happy New Year to you (and you Too Old Now) too.
then I stand corrected as to why the newsmedia no longer carry the story of why he is no longer hailed as a hero. My apologies if it came across in an insensitive way. I used that as an example that atheists/unbelievers too are/can be just as patriotic/moral as any theist.
Mark,
I do wish to point out to you that you are mistaken in that such morals in this patriotic context is not just 'utilitarian', and thus has nothing to do with any sense of absolute morality. Going to fight for defending freedom for those here at home and abroad transcends 'utilitarian morality', regardless what you might state otherwise.
And a Happy New Year to you (and you Too Old Now) too.
Garth,
Tillman was heroic, as are the vast majority of members of the military. However, like many who rush to the recruiting stand in the wake of an incident, his patriotism was situational...an emotional response. To repeat what I said earlier:
<blockquote><i>As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational. </i></blockquote>
Note: I did not use the term utilitarian as pertaining to Tillman, I used the term situational. He felt threatened and responded by "fight" rather than "flight." Not to downplay that, but there is a difference between somebody who abandons a peacetime career in the face of a threat as compared to somebody who volunteers his services regardless of the threat and regardless of the public sentiment. [keep in mind I say this as a person who went in the military in 1981 and retired in 2002] With any major event that impacts the country, there is a temporary upsurge of volunteers. The mindset of a person who volunteers as part of that upsurge is different than the mindset of a person who volunteers between the upsurges.
And, btw, I am also not hardly trying to assert that only theists do careers in the military. There have been many atheists who have done so and many of them have served with distinction. But I just don't believe that Tillman is a good example for you to use.
Garth, you state repeatedly that atheists are good people and that you folk have rock-solid mores. OK, fine. Could you please share with me the external authority or authorities you use to define what is right and wrong? What is your source for determining how to act in a given circumstance? I'm not trying to mock here, rather I'm just trying to understand. Is your ultimate authority "you" or is it something outside of you?
Sirg: are you saying the very act of smashing is what helps us grow and brings us a stronger and more well-defined faith? I have thought along these lines but have a nagging suspicion I'll be long in the dirt before there is nothing left to smash.
then i would simply find a way to smash that nagging suspicion, as well
What happened when I started thinking along those lines? I dunno, uh, well I stopped looking for a church to "fellowship" at. I guess nothing all that profound, I just gave up most of my unsubstaniated beliefs.
I look at it as just trying to be honest. Gawd, that's something I never was as a Christian. I always encouraged people to pray for this or that, when in reality, I'd never seen any real, tangible results from it.
I'd often had real mental gymnastic marathons to try to make Genesis conform with the known fossil record, and evolutionary theory. Gawd, that was difficult.
Eventually I decided that I'd go wherever the evidence lead. No presuppositions, no assumptions, and as much as possible, no prejudice in my thinking. And following that path lead pretty quickly to an agnostic mindset.
It's the only honest way I know to be. I certainly don't see any persuasive evidence of an all-knowing, all loving, omnipresent God. Yet how can I know with any degree of certainty that there isn't some sort of creator? A being vast enough to bring about all of creation, well He'd certainly be capable of remaining out of range of human cognition if He so desired, wouldn't He? So I think the only logical view is that of agnosticism. There's simply not enough evidence to come to any other sort of logical conclusion, is there?
Sorry I didn't respond earlier to your response. Garth and I usually get into these arguments about one subject or another...
I do not believe that Christians are the only moral people. I believe that there are many, many moral folk throughout, regardless of belief. I do believe that a belief in something larger than oneself is necessary to have a belief in moral absolutes, though (whether that something larger than oneself is Christ, Allah, the Goddess, Buddha, or whatever). I do believe that the correct interpretation and understanding of how God has revealed himself to mankind is through traditional, historic Christianity (vice many of the relatively recent heresies that have cropped up over the past 500 years)...but that is a completely different subject and would be a total derail of this thread. But, the bottom line is that, in my belief, there are some things that are absolute...while many things are varying shades of grey, to form that grey, one must have both black and white...and those absolutes need to be defined by something external to me...otherwise they can shift and would not thus be black or white.
As far as your general doubts are concerned, it's regrettable but understandable. I don't know you anywhere near enough to offer any counsel to you in those regards and so I won't pretend to be able to do so. If you'd care to share some of your experiences then perhaps I can offer you some counsel (PT me if you'd like). Let me ask you this: prior to you ever being involved with TWI, did you believe there was a supreme being larger than yourself? Is your frustration with this or is it with the disappointments experienced because the situation did not live up to what you were taught through TWI? I ask because it would be a shame to destroy a faith in God because of the shortcomings of a theology you were taught for a while. Or you can simply tell me to MYOB....
As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego.
Interesting. I read that his signing up for the military wasn't so reactional as that, and had a more transcendant reason to sign up that to exact revenge for his ego being bruised. Perhaps you can provide sources which can confirm your point?
And, btw, I am also not hardly trying to assert that only theists do careers in the military. There have been many atheists who have done so and many of them have served with distinction. But I just don't believe that Tillman is a good example for you to use.
Actually, based upon what I read about Tillman and why he signed up, I believe that he's a very good example for me to use. Now if you can confirm what you say about the man, maybe that would change, altho' I don't believe that it may be by much.
Now you might believe that one's atheism has no bearing on the loyalty and faithfulness in serving ones country, but, as you undoubtedly know, there are those to whom atheism does matter as regards to patriotism, not the least being George Bush Sr., who once stated "…I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God… I'm just not very high on atheists." So you can see more reason for my skepticism in this area.
Garth, you state repeatedly that atheists are good people and that you folk have rock-solid mores.
Please don't read more into what I said than what I actually said. My main point was that atheists are no more and no less moral than Christians/other theists. Thank you.
Could you please share with me the external authority or authorities you use to define what is right and wrong? What is your source for determining how to act in a given circumstance? I'm not trying to mock here, rather I'm just trying to understand. Is your ultimate authority "you" or is it something outside of you?
Very good question! :) Basically, I know for myself, I pretty much now use the 'intrinsic value' model for determining the moral value of a decision, rather than the 'this is what the Authority says' model. In TWI, that was shown by the 'It is Written' approach. Ie., what does the Bible say, and then base everything around that. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Wierwille and TWI were rabidly poor and twisted examples of that kind of reasoning, and I agree with that. But I hope it helps to illustrate my point.)
Quite a few of the atheists I know operate very similarly to the standpoint I do, or have different variations of it. Some are more utilitarian, or even situational, perhaps, but they prefer those over the "This is what THE Authority Says, now Shut Up and Do as You Are Told!" fundamentalist routine, particularly if that routine doesn't allow for any questioning/analysis/scrutiny of what The Morals are. And then you do have some atheists (Tom Leykis, the Seattle talk show host comes to mind) who are more or less the 'hedonist', as it were, and while I might enjoy his show from time to time, I don't go for that selfsame 'hedonist' behavior.
One thing you will find out about atheists. They are VERY independent minded, often to the disadvantage, organizationally speaking. It is said that trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats. That's one big reason why trying to label atheists politically or economically is a venture in foolishness, particularly when regards the desperate attempt by some to tie in atheism with communism. (Actually, there are more atheist Libertarians than even atheist moderate Socialists.)
Anywho, hope this helps give you a clearer, and more accurate picture of where atheists are at (all over the map, as it were :) ). The only real thing that deliniates atheists, is that they (we? I'm still trying to figure myself out in that area, believe it or not) just don't believe in a deity.
One of the things that I see coming up is the need to have a being higher than ourselves to define morality for us. The problem is when there are competing systems of morality all claiming to be from that same supreme being. Then we fall back on each of us experiencing God in our own way, and listening to that still, small voice...in practical terms I don't see this as any different than each person setting their own rules, building their own personal morality. You have a written standard? So do the Muslims. It's diferent. Or maybe you stick to the bible. Guess what? Everybody interprets it differently. Want a standard mode of reading and "rightly dividing"? Most of us have PFAL's "keys". Yup; still, we have different opinions.
So, if belief in God enables you to become a better person, I'm all for it. I just don't see "becoming a better person" limited to a belief in God, and certainly not to any particular faith.
Is it a higher sacrifice to give your life because your God inspired you to, or because you acted "situationally" to fight for your country? Opinions vary.
After all is said and done concerning my studies in christianity, I find the only thing which convinces me personally that a man named Jesus (or Isu) actually existed and lived 2,000 years ago - is ultimately not the elaborate theologies and rituals built up about Him over the centuries by ancients or moderns, be they orthodox or heretics: it's quite simply the parables attributed to Him. Even in the overbloated forms in which they survived and have come down to us, preserve a mindblowing potency still quite capable of sturring up and challenging the status quo of cultural, societal and personal expectations.
Isu's parables are not merely cute, harmless, slightly entertaining childrens' tales - they are snapshots of life from the first century, but within the context of their time, given by Isu a screw-with-your-head, Hitchcockian twist ending. Quite frankly, they f%@& with your mind. Isu was crucified as much by reason these subversive comic strips - if not more - as He may have been for anything else that He said or did.
Take for example the parable of the stewards and the talents in Luke 19. Which I've oft taken as an illustration for the moral of "use-it-or-lose-it", through the actions of the last servant who buried his allotment in the ground, rather than investing it like the others, to bring further gain for their master. The "lord" or master oft being taken as representative of Isu Himself. But that may not be what the storyteller originally intended at all.
I recently became acquainted with the idea that the servant who buried his money in the ground - rather than being the brunt of the moral, that he was a fool who didn't invest his money wisely for his master's gain - may actually have been the "hero" of the story.
He refused to go along his master's explotive, monetary schemes. He exposed his master as an "hard man" who "reaped where he did not sow". Jaochim Jeremias notes the character of this "lord" - a "cruel, oriental despot", who took partuclar pleasure in having his enemies brought before him to be slain.
It's funny, but I've wondered how many others besides myself who've read this parable from time to time had actually identified - indeed, even sympathized - if only subconsciously - with the man who buried his money for fear of his "lord", over the more successful others who multiplied it to stroke their lord's ego.
Isu was a mighty revolutionary who empowered the spirit of his peasant audience through the words He uttered into their ears.
Do His words still carry the same power?
Perhaps.
This upcoming year I look forward to studying and appreciating Isu's parables more.
Funny you should mention that. I'd always thought about that servant and his plight as being so analogous to WayWorld. No matter how we handled a situation it was still a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " situation. So, yeah, I often identified with that "unjust" servant...
So do I; I was never impressed with those other brown-nose "stewards" (lol); let us raise our glass to the "unjust servant" who had to the guts to tell his "lord" to his face what a hard-assed jerk he was - we could have used more folks like that in the Way international. And in heaven or hell, if need be.
Interesting. I read that his signing up for the military wasn't so reactional as that, and had a more transcendant reason to sign up that to exact revenge for his ego being bruised. Perhaps you can provide sources which can confirm your point?
Actually, based upon what I read about Tillman and why he signed up, I believe that he's a very good example for me to use. Now if you can confirm what you say about the man, maybe that would change, altho' I don't believe that it may be by much.
Garth, I just googled up Pat Tillman. Every account that I read, in between the oggling and idolatry said the following: <i>Several of Tillman's friends have said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks influenced his decision to enlist. </i> An example is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-04-23-tillman_x.htm">here</a>.
Why did we go into Afghanistan? To exact revenge on the people who harbored the terrorists who took down the trade towers. And to hunt down and kill members of that terrorist organization. Sounds like revenge from a bruised national ego to me. Was it just? Yeah. But it was also revenge. Did Al Qaeda present a realistic threat to the integrity of the United States? Please... Did the country of Afghanistan present a threat to our national security? Puhleese. Was it a threat to our national pride? Sure. Was it a threat to stability? Yeah. A threat to security? Yeah, right. 9/11 influenced Tillman greatly. So he joined the Rangers. Why would somebody join the Rangers? To see action...to actually be in the fight...
Oh, btw, I remember Tom Lykus from KFI radio in LA. He was a complete jerk then...
then i would simply find a way to smash that nagging suspicion, as well
Easier said than done, Sirg. That one just won't go away. I've often thought a lifetime on the planet just isn't enough. You're finally starting to get a clue and you're done.
Honesty. Good word, George. You're right about that. Most of my Way days I remember trying to funnel everyone I knew or met into Way-think. I had seen no tangible results from that thinking mind you, but that didn't stop me. I remember spewing forth the words time and again and saying to myself "Please believe, please believe, please believe." It really was a fundamentally dishonest time in my life.
Let me ask you this: prior to you ever being involved with TWI, did you believe there was a supreme being larger than yourself? Is your frustration with this or is it with the disappointments experienced because the situation did not live up to what you were taught through TWI?
Thanks Mark! I suppose I've always believed in a supreme being. Well, there was a time in my teens when I didn't pay much attention to anything like that at all but on the whole it seems to have always been there. The concept of a God and the idea that He spoke reliably to humanity in the bible is, well, rather profound. TWI's take on the bible seemed (and still kind of seems) right to me, assuming those two premises are true. Why wouldn't His words be perfect and fit like a hand in a glove? Why wouldn't you drop everything and commit your life to His service? Why wouldn't God be faithful to all of His promises?
I thought at one point after I started this thread that maybe the assumption shouldn't be that there is no God. Maybe a better discussion would follow an assumption that there is no bible, i.e., there is no reliable way to know God. That does seem to be more akin to where my head has been at lately. I think you're on to something there Mark!
Okay, I give. What's up with "Isu?" All I get when I google it is Indiana State University.
-JJ
It's the ancient Syrian-Marcionite transliteration for the name "Iesus" (yod-semketh-wah), as preserved in St.Ephraem's discussions about them. It's usually spelled with a "shin" but when Ephraem spoke of the Marcionites, he switched the letter in that name to "semkath".
This is discussed in further detail at my old website,
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
40
51
31
Popular Days
Dec 31
38
Jan 5
23
Jan 4
18
Jan 21
18
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 32 posts
CM 40 posts
templelady 51 posts
markomalley 31 posts
Popular Days
Dec 31 2005
38 posts
Jan 5 2006
23 posts
Jan 4 2006
18 posts
Jan 21 2006
18 posts
markomalley
Amuse and puzzle...throw into a thorough ( :) ) rage...one way or another... LOL
You state that your POV is based on absolutes...what would those absolutes be? What is the source of those absolutes? If man is the be-all and end-all, then man must be the absolute. And man can change, as you have been so wont to point out over the months and years we've been arguing.
You have listed the example of stealing as being an absolute moral wrong. I can think of a number of secular states, including many that have made absolute pronouncements of atheism as the official state policy, where collectivisation was practiced and where farms and industries were nationalized for the state. The justification: to take the capital out of the hands of the bourgeoise. Murder might also be seen as an absolute, yet I'm sure we can think of many examples where infanticide has been justified based on circumstances. I'm not trying to invoke some form of Godwin's law here, but the point is that in an environment where man sets the standards based upon himself as the reference point, seemingly obvious 'absolutes' may end up all too relative.
Utilitarianism is simply the concept of the ends justifying the means. The means may be altered as seen fit to accomplish the ends involved. And, no, I do not think that utilitarianism is a condition that solely afflicts atheists. A utilitiarian moral structure is one where the moral standards are adjusted to accomplish what is perceived to be a worthy goal. Taking the China one-child policy as an example, the "worthy goal" was one of limiting the population, seen as increasing too quickly. The mores that were altered included the value of a large family, abortion, formerly seen as a taboo being viewed as the correct thing to do, and so on. There are many more examples, but...enough
And as for your not being an evangelical...I do like the qualifier you gave that you are no more evangelical than some Christians who post on this board. You are indeed a very fervent supporter of your belief system and very vocal in your support of it...as well as being very condescending, at best, of those who do not agree with that belief system. In addition, I detect a certain desire to convince others to subscribe to those beliefs. If that's not evangelical, I don't know what is...
Oh, btw, Happy New Year
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Oh yes.. one other thing... Garth...
My son is in the Army and happens to be home for a few days...
Tillman was killed by friendly fire. So have many, many, many other soldiers. This is not a "new" thing. It is an "old" thing. And when it happens... the Army and the men who did IT... feel shame and remorse... and other horrible things - for years and years.
You attributed his story being dropped from public discorse to the fact that he was an "un-believer".
Garth. That is not the reason. Not at all. It is an issue of shame and guilt for the survivors.
His sacrifice was no more (or less!!!!!!!!!!) than anyone else who has died... in combat. Regardless of WHO killed him.
Friendly fire is fact of combat. For all countries and times, it is a well known fact.
Then… I and my son would say…
Do NOT start to change the facts so they fit a myth for your argument's benefit. It is a disgrace of the highest order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Sorry Jumpin....
To answer your question
The path from my first post several years ago would take years to describe in detail. It has been filled with a tremendous amount of reading and trials.
Please do not think that I am a bold one.
Actually, I am a chicken. I try much, MUCH less than what I read.
I am c a u t i o u s.
So... please PT me if you want anything close to details.
I do not, nor will not, put my heart on these forums. Too much fighting, if you catch my drift.
Edited by Too Gray NowLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Too Old Now,
then I stand corrected as to why the newsmedia no longer carry the story of why he is no longer hailed as a hero. My apologies if it came across in an insensitive way. I used that as an example that atheists/unbelievers too are/can be just as patriotic/moral as any theist.
Mark,
I do wish to point out to you that you are mistaken in that such morals in this patriotic context is not just 'utilitarian', and thus has nothing to do with any sense of absolute morality. Going to fight for defending freedom for those here at home and abroad transcends 'utilitarian morality', regardless what you might state otherwise.
And a Happy New Year to you (and you Too Old Now) too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
ummm garth...the war is about oil....
and it's supply to the good old us of a
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth,
Tillman was heroic, as are the vast majority of members of the military. However, like many who rush to the recruiting stand in the wake of an incident, his patriotism was situational...an emotional response. To repeat what I said earlier:
<blockquote><i>As to your hero, Tillman, consider this: the morality that led him to volunteer his services was supremely situational. He was offended by the attacks by Al Qaeda and proceeded to, based upon this offense, volunteer to exact retribution on those who bruised his ego. Heroic, yes, but still supremely situational. </i></blockquote>
Note: I did not use the term utilitarian as pertaining to Tillman, I used the term situational. He felt threatened and responded by "fight" rather than "flight." Not to downplay that, but there is a difference between somebody who abandons a peacetime career in the face of a threat as compared to somebody who volunteers his services regardless of the threat and regardless of the public sentiment. [keep in mind I say this as a person who went in the military in 1981 and retired in 2002] With any major event that impacts the country, there is a temporary upsurge of volunteers. The mindset of a person who volunteers as part of that upsurge is different than the mindset of a person who volunteers between the upsurges.
And, btw, I am also not hardly trying to assert that only theists do careers in the military. There have been many atheists who have done so and many of them have served with distinction. But I just don't believe that Tillman is a good example for you to use.
Garth, you state repeatedly that atheists are good people and that you folk have rock-solid mores. OK, fine. Could you please share with me the external authority or authorities you use to define what is right and wrong? What is your source for determining how to act in a given circumstance? I'm not trying to mock here, rather I'm just trying to understand. Is your ultimate authority "you" or is it something outside of you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
JJ wrote:
then i would simply find a way to smash that nagging suspicion, as well
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
JJ,
What happened when I started thinking along those lines? I dunno, uh, well I stopped looking for a church to "fellowship" at. I guess nothing all that profound, I just gave up most of my unsubstaniated beliefs.
I look at it as just trying to be honest. Gawd, that's something I never was as a Christian. I always encouraged people to pray for this or that, when in reality, I'd never seen any real, tangible results from it.
I'd often had real mental gymnastic marathons to try to make Genesis conform with the known fossil record, and evolutionary theory. Gawd, that was difficult.
Eventually I decided that I'd go wherever the evidence lead. No presuppositions, no assumptions, and as much as possible, no prejudice in my thinking. And following that path lead pretty quickly to an agnostic mindset.
It's the only honest way I know to be. I certainly don't see any persuasive evidence of an all-knowing, all loving, omnipresent God. Yet how can I know with any degree of certainty that there isn't some sort of creator? A being vast enough to bring about all of creation, well He'd certainly be capable of remaining out of range of human cognition if He so desired, wouldn't He? So I think the only logical view is that of agnosticism. There's simply not enough evidence to come to any other sort of logical conclusion, is there?
I never found it, anyway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Jumpin Jive,
Sorry I didn't respond earlier to your response. Garth and I usually get into these arguments about one subject or another...
I do not believe that Christians are the only moral people. I believe that there are many, many moral folk throughout, regardless of belief. I do believe that a belief in something larger than oneself is necessary to have a belief in moral absolutes, though (whether that something larger than oneself is Christ, Allah, the Goddess, Buddha, or whatever). I do believe that the correct interpretation and understanding of how God has revealed himself to mankind is through traditional, historic Christianity (vice many of the relatively recent heresies that have cropped up over the past 500 years)...but that is a completely different subject and would be a total derail of this thread. But, the bottom line is that, in my belief, there are some things that are absolute...while many things are varying shades of grey, to form that grey, one must have both black and white...and those absolutes need to be defined by something external to me...otherwise they can shift and would not thus be black or white.
As far as your general doubts are concerned, it's regrettable but understandable. I don't know you anywhere near enough to offer any counsel to you in those regards and so I won't pretend to be able to do so. If you'd care to share some of your experiences then perhaps I can offer you some counsel (PT me if you'd like). Let me ask you this: prior to you ever being involved with TWI, did you believe there was a supreme being larger than yourself? Is your frustration with this or is it with the disappointments experienced because the situation did not live up to what you were taught through TWI? I ask because it would be a shame to destroy a faith in God because of the shortcomings of a theology you were taught for a while. Or you can simply tell me to MYOB....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and I meant to add, I didn't even know there was a name for my chosen belief system, but lo and behold, looky what I found today:
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I haven't come up with an entirely unique way of thinking...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol george...
lets stop all this imagination and thinking beyond the logic
great for school books and elementery science
when will they graduate into adulthood
and reality
and the real abilities that we have
how many real things that are in concretion that defys logic?
ever thought about it really?
ignoring the true lives that defyed logic
ignoring ourselves and the power of
CREATIVE THOUGHT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
Interesting. I read that his signing up for the military wasn't so reactional as that, and had a more transcendant reason to sign up that to exact revenge for his ego being bruised. Perhaps you can provide sources which can confirm your point?Actually, based upon what I read about Tillman and why he signed up, I believe that he's a very good example for me to use. Now if you can confirm what you say about the man, maybe that would change, altho' I don't believe that it may be by much.
Now you might believe that one's atheism has no bearing on the loyalty and faithfulness in serving ones country, but, as you undoubtedly know, there are those to whom atheism does matter as regards to patriotism, not the least being George Bush Sr., who once stated "…I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God… I'm just not very high on atheists." So you can see more reason for my skepticism in this area.
Please don't read more into what I said than what I actually said. My main point was that atheists are no more and no less moral than Christians/other theists. Thank you.Very good question! :) Basically, I know for myself, I pretty much now use the 'intrinsic value' model for determining the moral value of a decision, rather than the 'this is what the Authority says' model. In TWI, that was shown by the 'It is Written' approach. Ie., what does the Bible say, and then base everything around that. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Wierwille and TWI were rabidly poor and twisted examples of that kind of reasoning, and I agree with that. But I hope it helps to illustrate my point.)
Quite a few of the atheists I know operate very similarly to the standpoint I do, or have different variations of it. Some are more utilitarian, or even situational, perhaps, but they prefer those over the "This is what THE Authority Says, now Shut Up and Do as You Are Told!" fundamentalist routine, particularly if that routine doesn't allow for any questioning/analysis/scrutiny of what The Morals are. And then you do have some atheists (Tom Leykis, the Seattle talk show host comes to mind) who are more or less the 'hedonist', as it were, and while I might enjoy his show from time to time, I don't go for that selfsame 'hedonist' behavior.
One thing you will find out about atheists. They are VERY independent minded, often to the disadvantage, organizationally speaking. It is said that trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats. That's one big reason why trying to label atheists politically or economically is a venture in foolishness, particularly when regards the desperate attempt by some to tie in atheism with communism. (Actually, there are more atheist Libertarians than even atheist moderate Socialists.)
Anywho, hope this helps give you a clearer, and more accurate picture of where atheists are at (all over the map, as it were :) ). The only real thing that deliniates atheists, is that they (we? I'm still trying to figure myself out in that area, believe it or not) just don't believe in a deity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
or lets just limit creative thought
yes put in a book or a story
and call it logic
stop the progression already, they just can't handle it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One of the things that I see coming up is the need to have a being higher than ourselves to define morality for us. The problem is when there are competing systems of morality all claiming to be from that same supreme being. Then we fall back on each of us experiencing God in our own way, and listening to that still, small voice...in practical terms I don't see this as any different than each person setting their own rules, building their own personal morality. You have a written standard? So do the Muslims. It's diferent. Or maybe you stick to the bible. Guess what? Everybody interprets it differently. Want a standard mode of reading and "rightly dividing"? Most of us have PFAL's "keys". Yup; still, we have different opinions.
So, if belief in God enables you to become a better person, I'm all for it. I just don't see "becoming a better person" limited to a belief in God, and certainly not to any particular faith.
Is it a higher sacrifice to give your life because your God inspired you to, or because you acted "situationally" to fight for your country? Opinions vary.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
After all is said and done concerning my studies in christianity, I find the only thing which convinces me personally that a man named Jesus (or Isu) actually existed and lived 2,000 years ago - is ultimately not the elaborate theologies and rituals built up about Him over the centuries by ancients or moderns, be they orthodox or heretics: it's quite simply the parables attributed to Him. Even in the overbloated forms in which they survived and have come down to us, preserve a mindblowing potency still quite capable of sturring up and challenging the status quo of cultural, societal and personal expectations.
Isu's parables are not merely cute, harmless, slightly entertaining childrens' tales - they are snapshots of life from the first century, but within the context of their time, given by Isu a screw-with-your-head, Hitchcockian twist ending. Quite frankly, they f%@& with your mind. Isu was crucified as much by reason these subversive comic strips - if not more - as He may have been for anything else that He said or did.
Take for example the parable of the stewards and the talents in Luke 19. Which I've oft taken as an illustration for the moral of "use-it-or-lose-it", through the actions of the last servant who buried his allotment in the ground, rather than investing it like the others, to bring further gain for their master. The "lord" or master oft being taken as representative of Isu Himself. But that may not be what the storyteller originally intended at all.
I recently became acquainted with the idea that the servant who buried his money in the ground - rather than being the brunt of the moral, that he was a fool who didn't invest his money wisely for his master's gain - may actually have been the "hero" of the story.
He refused to go along his master's explotive, monetary schemes. He exposed his master as an "hard man" who "reaped where he did not sow". Jaochim Jeremias notes the character of this "lord" - a "cruel, oriental despot", who took partuclar pleasure in having his enemies brought before him to be slain.
It's funny, but I've wondered how many others besides myself who've read this parable from time to time had actually identified - indeed, even sympathized - if only subconsciously - with the man who buried his money for fear of his "lord", over the more successful others who multiplied it to stroke their lord's ego.
Isu was a mighty revolutionary who empowered the spirit of his peasant audience through the words He uttered into their ears.
Do His words still carry the same power?
Perhaps.
This upcoming year I look forward to studying and appreciating Isu's parables more.
Happy new year.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Danny,
Funny you should mention that. I'd always thought about that servant and his plight as being so analogous to WayWorld. No matter how we handled a situation it was still a "damned if you do, damned if you don't " situation. So, yeah, I often identified with that "unjust" servant...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Geo,
So do I; I was never impressed with those other brown-nose "stewards" (lol); let us raise our glass to the "unjust servant" who had to the guts to tell his "lord" to his face what a hard-assed jerk he was - we could have used more folks like that in the Way international. And in heaven or hell, if need be.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
George, Danny,
you've both given me a different perspective to consider
thanks
and George i hope i wasn't too hard on your beliefs
i hope you will not be hard on mine
the heart is tender in it's natural state
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth, I just googled up Pat Tillman. Every account that I read, in between the oggling and idolatry said the following: <i>Several of Tillman's friends have said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks influenced his decision to enlist. </i> An example is <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-04-23-tillman_x.htm">here</a>.
Why did we go into Afghanistan? To exact revenge on the people who harbored the terrorists who took down the trade towers. And to hunt down and kill members of that terrorist organization. Sounds like revenge from a bruised national ego to me. Was it just? Yeah. But it was also revenge. Did Al Qaeda present a realistic threat to the integrity of the United States? Please... Did the country of Afghanistan present a threat to our national security? Puhleese. Was it a threat to our national pride? Sure. Was it a threat to stability? Yeah. A threat to security? Yeah, right. 9/11 influenced Tillman greatly. So he joined the Rangers. Why would somebody join the Rangers? To see action...to actually be in the fight...
Oh, btw, I remember Tom Lykus from KFI radio in LA. He was a complete jerk then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Okay, I give. What's up with "Isu?" All I get when I google it is Indiana State University.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Honesty. Good word, George. You're right about that. Most of my Way days I remember trying to funnel everyone I knew or met into Way-think. I had seen no tangible results from that thinking mind you, but that didn't stop me. I remember spewing forth the words time and again and saying to myself "Please believe, please believe, please believe." It really was a fundamentally dishonest time in my life.
Thanks Mark! I suppose I've always believed in a supreme being. Well, there was a time in my teens when I didn't pay much attention to anything like that at all but on the whole it seems to have always been there. The concept of a God and the idea that He spoke reliably to humanity in the bible is, well, rather profound. TWI's take on the bible seemed (and still kind of seems) right to me, assuming those two premises are true. Why wouldn't His words be perfect and fit like a hand in a glove? Why wouldn't you drop everything and commit your life to His service? Why wouldn't God be faithful to all of His promises?
I thought at one point after I started this thread that maybe the assumption shouldn't be that there is no God. Maybe a better discussion would follow an assumption that there is no bible, i.e., there is no reliable way to know God. That does seem to be more akin to where my head has been at lately. I think you're on to something there Mark!
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Try googling Yeshua.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's the ancient Syrian-Marcionite transliteration for the name "Iesus" (yod-semketh-wah), as preserved in St.Ephraem's discussions about them. It's usually spelled with a "shin" but when Ephraem spoke of the Marcionites, he switched the letter in that name to "semkath".
This is discussed in further detail at my old website,
http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/3827/ephintro.htm
in the introduction to C.W. Mitchell's translation of Ephraem's "Prose Refutations"
of Marcion.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Thanks, guys! Isu makes more sense now.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.